Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 1991

Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 3-19

               The Go'el in Ancient Israel :
              Theological Reflections on
                  an Israelite Institution ¹

                            ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR.
                  DENVER CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST SEMINARY

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 gō'ēl 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

gō'ēl institution still elude precise definition.⁵

            1. The Annual Old Testament Lecture given November 18, 1989 at the Institute for
Biblical Research, Anaheim , CA . I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of two stu-
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.; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1962) 60-63; H. Wit-
zenrath, Das Buch Rut (SANT 40; Munich: Kösel, 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 Goel 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 Israel 's idea of gō'ēl in general terms. Second, I will explore

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 gō'ēl practice will replace that dangerous overfamil-

iarity of which Capon warned.

                                                     I

              The term gō'ēl derives from the realm of Israelite family law.⁷ It

describes a close relative, a "kinsman-redeemer," who takes upon

himself the duties of g^e'ulla—"redemption" or "recovery"—on behalf

of a needy family member. Actually, at any given time, a pool of

gō'^alîm 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 gō'ēl," VT
33 (1983) 231-34; E. Lipinski, "Le Mariage de Ruth," VT 26 (1976) 124-27; H.-F. Richter,
"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 0. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament ( New York : Abingdon-Cokesbury,
1949) 131-32; L. Koehler, Old Testament Theology (tr.; London : Lutterworth, 1957) 234-
35; G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament ( Richmond : John Knox,
1959) 235; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Old Testament Theology ( Grand Rapids : Zonder-
van, 1978) 104-5, 126; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia :
Westminster , 1961) 1.96-97; E. Martens, God's Design (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 104-
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 [19801 506-7). For Yahweh as gō'ēl, see
F. Holmgren, "The Concept of YHWH as ‘Gō'ēl' in Second Isaiah," (Ph.D. diss., Union
Seminary in New York , 1963); J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC 25; Waco , TX : Word,
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 gō'ēl.

                     HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl in Ancient Israel                            5

the gō'ēl was to avenge the death of a relative—the so-called

"redeemer of blood" (gō'ēl haddām; 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 gō'ēl would receive any monetary restitution due a deceased

relative for a wrong committed against him (Num 5:8). Finally, the

gō'ēl  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 Israel (vv 1-2). Instructions concerning the gō'ēl duties

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
23:11; Jer 50:34; Lam 3:58.
            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 g^e'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. E. Kutsch , "the legal institution in-
volved is not levirate marriage but ge'ullâ, '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; Rome : Pontifi-
cal Biblical Institute, 1954); R. Westbrook, "Jubilee Laws," Israel Law Review 6 (1971)
209-26; A. Meinhold, "Zur Bezeihung Gott, Volk, Land, im Jobel-Zusammerthang," BZ
29 (1985) 245-61; R. Gnuse, "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel 's Vision of Social Re-
form," BTB 15 (1985) 43-48. Vv 29-34 also treat the subject of redemption (specifically,
of houses) but without the intervention of a gō'ēl. 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-
indenture 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; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
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 Israel observed during

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, kî yāmûk 'āhîkā ûmākā mē'^ahuzzātô ("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 kî yāmûk 'āhîkā ("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) 123-42; 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; Grand Rapids : Eerdmans,
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 Israel 's con-
quest of Canaan (125); cf. J. van der Ploeg, "There can be no doubt indeed, that most 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; Philadelphia : West-
minster, 1977) 185; J. R. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976)
197; H. Wildberger, " Israel und sein Land," EvT 16 (1956) 404-22. On the other hand,
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;
Greenwood , SC : Attic Press, 1967) 164.
            16. As in other Semitic languages, here 'āh means not "brother" but more generally
"kinsman, close relative"; cf. E. Jenni , "'āh," 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, Israel understood the qual-
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 Rechtssätze
(WMANT 39; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1971) 22, 31-32, 35 n. 1.

                   HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl in Ancient Israel                             7

Unfortunately, the root mûk 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 mûk. Taken literally, mātâ yādô means "his hand shakes" (root

mût "to waver, shake"), a metaphor which probably refers to economic

weakness.²⁰ Hence, in this context, the root mûk 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 gō'ēl

of the "mortgage buyer" may "redeem" (gā'āl) 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

a gō'ēl, yet somehow gathers the necessary means, he may redeem

            19. J. Aistleitner, Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache ( Berlin : Akademie-Verlag,
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
(w^eheh^ezaqtā, lit. "and you shall strengthen"). In other words, the fellow Israelite who
"becomes weak" (yāmûk) must receive strength from someone else (heh^ezaqtā).
            21. So most scholars; cf. Noth 187; Leggett 88; Wenham 317. The partitive min in
mē'^ahuzzātô 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; Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1949] 2.461). Lipinski points out that
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. Lipiński, " Sale ,
Transfer, and Delivery in Ancient Semitic Terminology," in Gesselschaft und Kultur im
alten Vorderasien (ed. H. Klengel; SGKAO 15; Berlin : Akademie Verlag, 1982) 175.
            23. But cf. Porter, who believes that the redeemers in vv 48-49 come from a wider
circle than the one in v 25 (206). For a critique of the view that v 25 deals with the right
of preemption as in 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 gō'ēl 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 Israel . Strikingly, however, to support it, Yahweh appeals to an

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; Israel only works it on his behalf. Yahweh alone

enjoys the full rights and privileges of ownership; Israel only lives there

by his grace. By contrast, Israel is just a resident alien (gēr) and settler

(tôšāb). Now, in Israel , a resident alien enjoyed a status somewhere

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; New York : Ktav,
19691 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 (TBÜ 12;
Munich : Chr. Kaiser, 1961) 220 (Terminus der Haftungsatiflösung); vv 28, 30, 31, 33, 41, 54.
Leggett ably argues the case that the property reverts, not to the gō'ēl, 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 Ugarit ," VT 8 (1958) 95.
            27. Elsewhere, s^emîtût only occurs in vv 23 and 30. For the meaning of lismîtût, 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 Gültigkeit (220); Rabinowitz, 95.
            28. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (E.T.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 74-76; I). Keller-
man, "gûr," TDOT 2.443 ("protected citizen"); cf. R. Martin-Achard, "gûr," THAT 1.410.
The Old Testament often associates the tôsāb with the gēr (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: The Gō'ēl in Ancient Israel                          9

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 19:10; 23:22; Deut 24:14, 19-21). The

point, then, is that Israel lives, not on her own land, but on land 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 (titnû)

redemption (g^e'ullâ) 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, Israel

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 gō'ēl, by self-redemption, or by Jubilee,

Yahweh intends redemption to maintain a social and economic equi-

librium in Israel .

            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 (ûmāk 'āhîkā, "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 ("jôbē1," 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 (g^e'ullâ; 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 Israel-

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 Israel . Thus, the aliens probably obtained their wealth through business
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 Ugarit ," VT 10 (1960) 83-90.
            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 Israel 's inability to impose on for-
eigners the requirement for manumission of slaves after six years (192).
            36. So Leggett 101, 105. The key phrase is yāšîb ('et)-g^e'ullātô (vv 51, 52). Here g^e'ullâ
means "price of redemption" (so Elliger 343).

               HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl in Ancient Israel                       11

like an ordinary slave, but like a ś^ekîr, 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 Israel are mine; they are my

servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt . . . " (v 42). Obvi-

ously, Yahweh recalls the famous liberation of Israel at the Exodus

(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 6:24). Second, the

statement implies that the Jubilee release is the social mechanism

whereby Yahweh protects his interests. It is a social statement that he

owns Israel and defends his rights. Third, there appears to be an

important wordplay between two forms of the verb ys' in the context.

According to v 54, the redeemed Israelite is to (lit.) "go out" (w^eyāsā',

qal)—that is, to go free. According to v 55, at the Exodus, Yahweh

"brought out" Israel (hôsē'tî, hiph.)—that is, set her free. Implicitly,

the wordplay links the Exodus with the institution of ge'ullâ. 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 Israel . On the one hand, it perpetuates the first

liberation—that from Egyptian slavery—within later, settled Israel . It

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 gō'ēl 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
its teaching about g^e'ullâ (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,
the 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 gō'ēl 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 gō'ēl 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 Canaan ,

his policy is that families retain, not lose, their inherited land. Since he

owns Israel , his policy is that his people never see perpetual slavery

again. He is their only master, a God of liberation. For Israel , the

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 šûb 'el/l^e '^ahuzzâ, "to return to (one's)

possession" (vv 27, 28; cf. vv 10, 13, 41).⁴¹ In this context, '^ahuzzâ

("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 modern imprison-
ment, that is, a means to work off a fine in confinement (322).
            40. North, Jubilee 158; cf. Noth 183.
            41. The word d^erôr ("liberty," v 10) is related, although it envisions a broader resto-
ration, that of both property and perso