Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 1991
Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 3-19
Theological Reflections on
an Israelite Institution 1
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 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,
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
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 gō'ēl practice will replace that dangerous overfamil-
iarity of which Capon warned.
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
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,
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 (
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 [19801 506-7). For Yahweh as gō'ēl, see
F. Holmgren, "The Concept of YHWH as ‘Gō'ēl' 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 gō'ēl.
HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl in Ancient
"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
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 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'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;
cal Biblical Institute, 1954); R. Westbrook, "Jubilee Laws,"
209-26; A. Meinhold, "Zur Bezeihung Gott, Volk, Land, im Jobel-Zusammerthang," 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 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
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;
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 'āh means not "brother" but more generally
"kinsman, close relative"; cf.
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 Rechtssätze
(WMANT 39; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1971) 22, 31-32, 35 n. 1.
HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl in Ancient
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 (
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
(wehehezaqtā, lit. "and you shall strengthen"). In other words, the fellow Israelite who
"becomes weak" (yāmûk) must receive strength from someone else (hehezaqtā).
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;
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, "
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
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
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,
(tôšāb). 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;
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;
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
27. Elsewhere, semîtût 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
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
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 (ge'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,
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
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 (ge'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
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 yāšîb ('et)-ge'ullātô (vv 51, 52). Here ge'ullâ
means "price of redemption" (so Elliger 343).
HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl in Ancient
like an ordinary slave, but like a śekîr, 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 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
important wordplay between two forms of the verb ys' in the context.
According to v 54, the redeemed Israelite is to (lit.) "go out" (weyāsā',
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'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
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 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
way the Old Testament pictures the Exodus (i.e., a redemption of slaves) derives from
its teaching about ge'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
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 šûb 'el/le '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
ment, that is, a means to work off a fine in confinement (322).
40. North, Jubilee 158; cf. Noth 183.
41. The word derôr ("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, "derôr,"
TDOT 3.265-69.
42. Cf. 'ahuzzâ 'abōtāyw (v 41). Elsewhere it refers primarily to possession of land
(Gen 47:11, 30; Josh 22:19); but cf. Lev 25:45, 46 (of slaves). For the term, see F. Horst,
"Zwei Begriffe für Eigentum (Besitz): nahalâ und 'ahuzzâ," in Verbannung und Heimkehr
(ed. A. Kuschke; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeckl, 1961) 153-56; H. H. Schmid,
"'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" (mišpāhâ; vv 10, 41). That might confirm that
"return" referred to actual physical reunion of land and landholder.
HUBBARD: The Gō'ēl 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
modern 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