Additional note on the meaning of g’l
Additional note on the meaning of g’l
Words from the root g’l are used with a variety of meanings in the Old Testament, but the fundamental idea is that of fulfilling one’s obligations as a kinsman. Indeed BDB give the meaning of the verb as ‘redeem, act as kinsman’, while O. Procksch says that it is a ‘concept in family law’.4 It may thus be used as a general term to denote one’s relations, as when Zimri slew all the house of Baasha and left ‘not one … of his kinsfolks’ (1 Kgs 16:11). A good example of this basic meaning is to be discerned in Job 3:5, where the sufferer curses the day of his birth saying, ‘Let darkness and the shadow of death claim it for their own’ (RV), i.e. acknowledge it as kin. Arising out of the family relationship is a variety of duties. The verb may be used of redeeming a relation from a state of slavery into which he has fallen (Lev. 25:48f.), or redeeming his field (Lev. 25:25). This last-mentioned duty may perhaps have been connected with the idea that the Israelites were not the absolute owners of the land. All the land was God’s. They did but hold it in trust. Thus they could not sell it. If times were hard and money short they could indeed part with the land, but there was always the right and the duty of redemption. When a man’s financial state improved he must buy back the land on which God had set him. Or, if he could not do this, his gō’ēl must do it for him. That redemption of land was regarded as important we see from Ruth 4:3f., where the land is mentioned before the lady. When one of the family has been murdered it is important that the family honour be upheld, and the nearest relation is bound to avenge the deceased. There are few passages dealing with the order in which relations were reckoned, but closest were brothers, then uncles, then uncles’ sons (Lev. 25:48f.). The participle of our verb may be rendered ‘the revenger’ of blood (Num. 35:19, etc.). But the word does not mean ‘revenger’. That is the outworking in a particular situation of the basic family in obligation.In this book the participle is used to denote a kinsman in 2:20; 3:9, 12 (twice); 4:1, 3, 6, 8, 14. (‘Kinsman’ in 2:1 translates a different Hebrew word.) The verb is also found in the sense of ‘play the part of a kinsman’ four times in 3:13, in each case the duty in question being the marriage of Ruth. The point of this is that Mahlon, Ruth’s husband, had died childless. There was therefore an obligation resting on the next of kin to marry the widow and have a child who would be regarded as the child of the deceased and carry on his name (see Deut. 25:5–10 for an account of the custom). The same verb is found five times in 4:4, in each case being translated ‘redeem’. Once again the family thought is basic. There is some land that Naomi is selling and which must be redeemed lest it pass out of the family. The next of kin owes a duty to the family here. The same is true of the three occurrences of the verb in 4:6, though in two of them the duty is being declined by the next of kin. A cognate noun refers to the same transaction in 4:6, 7. Differing translations are necessary in the different passages, but we should not miss the connections nor overlook the strong family sense which is basic.