Structure of Leviticus 23:23-55
These verses begin the second major section of Leviticus 25, which argue that the Jubilee is for the redemption of land. While the content is focused on the laws of redemption which can preempt the Jubilee, the fact that each major law includes the Jubilee shows that the Jubilee concern has not left the author’s mind. The Jubilee is the framework within which the laws for redemption of land and persons operate. This second section of Leviticus 25 follows a consistent structure, with each successive stage of destitution marked out by the formula: “If your brother becomes poor” (Lev 25:25, 35, 39, and 47).81 This protasis is repeated four times since the third stage imagines two different worse-case scenarios, one in which an Israelite sells himself to another Israelite and another in which an Israelite sells himself to a foreigner. The structure follows a general “principle of priority,” with each successive stage of destitution demanding more attention and priority.82 In other words, the first stage is not as dire of a situation as the second stage, so on and so forth. The first section is interrupted by an excursus regarding the sale of city dwellings in verses 29-34, thus answering the practical question of
whether urban houses applied or not. The third stage also deals with the practical question of foreign slaves in verses 44-46.
ownership of the land. The objective of the Jubilee is to encourage Israelites to take action and preserve the socioeconomic system of land tenure. If they fail to do so or are unable to do so, Yahweh will intervene every forty-ninth year to set things back into right order. Further, the Jubilee is necessary even if Israelites intervened, as they ought to have in every impoverished situation through the rights of redemption. As C. J. H. Wright has pointed out, such action would have resulted in the land being controlled by a few families. Thus, the Jubilee functions as a necessary override to the function and practice of redemption.
It is tempting, at first glance, to see the practice of redemption and the
observance of the Jubilee as the same thing, with different timing. However, they not only differ in timing, but also differ in purpose. Redemption focused on keeping the clan whole, both persons and land. The Jubilee focused on keeping families together and families tied to their ancestral land. This same understanding is argued for by C. J. H. Wright:
There were two main differences between the redemption and jubilee provisions.
First, timing. Redemption was a duty that could be exercised at any time, locally, as circumstances required, whereas jubilee was twice a century as a national event.
Secondly, purpose. The main aim of redemption was the preservation of the land and persons of the clan, whereas the main beneficiary of the jubilee was the household, or “father’s house.” The jubilee therefore functioned as a necessary override to the practice of redemption. . . . The jubilee was . . . a mechanism . . . to preserve the socio-economic fabric of multiple-household land tenure with the comparative equality and independent viability of the smallest family-plus-land units.83
As has been discussed at length already, a central rationale for the Jubilee is the Lord’s possession of the land and the Israelite people. You cannot sell what belongs to another. The language of verse 23 emphasizes Yahweh’s possession of the nation. The nation is referred to as “strangers and sojourners,” a hendiadys that is repeated in 24:35 and 25:47. A similar phrase is used in 1 Chronicles 29:15, “For we are strangers before you and sojourners.” Further, the language in Leviticus 25:23 is stronger than “before
83 Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 204-5.
you,” as it can be translated “Indeed you are aliens and strangers in my service.”84 While Israelites may have individual holdings (הזָּחֻאֲ), the reality is that they are resident
sojourners in the land of Yahweh. He owns the title and they are his servants. This is the claim consistently made throughout Leviticus 25. The chapter ends with a reminder of Yahweh’s ownership: “For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Lev 25:55).85 The terms “strangers and sojourners” normally describes a class of people who lived among the Israelites in Canaan but were not ethnic Israelites.86 As such, they had no land holdings and were dependent on hiring their services out to other Israelites to
survive. This tenuous position made them vulnerable, which is why the law emphasizes the need to treat them with fairness and justice.87 Israelites are in a similar position as these non-ethnic Israelites. Their rights to the land are dependent on the Lord’s generosity.
The Lord is master of the Israelites and he is also master of the land of Israel.
Although אָץ is used here in Leviticus 25:23, the context demands that this be רֶ
understood as a reference to the land of Israel. Moses regularly refers to the land of Canaan with אֶץרֶ (Lev 20:24; 23:22; 25:2, 4). The history of Israel has emphasized on many occasions that both the land of Israel and the earth belong to the Lord. The song of Moses celebrates Israel’s planting into the land of Israel, calling it God’s “mountain” and a “sanctuary”: “You will bring them in and plant them on your own mountain, the place, O LORD, which you have made for your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands
84 See BDB, s.v. “ ﬠִם 3a.” See Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2181-82 for a similar understanding of ידִמָּﬠִ.
85 Also Lev 25:38, 42.
86 Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 201.
87 See Exod 20:10; 23:9; Deut 5:14; 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; Jer 22:3; Ezek 22:7;
Zech 7:10.
have established (Exodus 15:17).88 The covenant itself grounds God’s rights over Israel in his ownership of the entire earth: “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine” (Exod 19:5). Deuteronomy 26:1-11 connects divine ownership with the ethical response expected by Israel, demanding that they be faithful stewards. The Lord has entrusted his land to them, and that trust carries with it ethical obligations.89
Of course, Yahweh does not just own the title to the land. It is also described as his abode and his sanctuary (Exodus 15:16-17). A number of Old Testament texts imply that the land is an extension of the Temple (Exod 15:17; Isa 11:9; 57:13; Hos 9:15;
Ps 78:54), which entails the conclusion that Yahweh resides in the entire land (e.g., Num 35:34; Josh 22:19).90 For this reason, the land is a holy place that must be kept pure.
Leviticus 18:27-28 threatens that the land will vomit Israel out if they defile it:
But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. (Lev 18:27-28)91
Yahweh’s ownership and presence in the land is the reason for the negative command of Leviticus 25:23a. The apodictic and permanent clause, “shall not [ לֹא ] be sold,” emphasizes to the buyer that he is only purchasing rights to the land for a limited term which ends at the Jubilee, without qualification. The right of redemption is
theologically grounded in Yahweh’s ownership. They received rights to use the land and
88 See J. G. Millar, “Land,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 623. For God’s ownership of the land of Israel, see Deut 32:43;
Josh 22:19; Isa 14:2, 25; Jer 2:7; Ezek 36:5.
89 See also Ps 24:1.
90 I am indebted to Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2186, for this overall point. See G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, 2004).
91 See also Lev 20:22.
possess it by lot (Num 33:50-56; Josh 14–19). Because the Lord gave it to them, only the Lord can revoke those rights.92 Wright argues that this tension between divine gift and divine ownership as regards the land meant that the land functioned as the fulcrum for Israel’s relationship with God:
This dual tradition of the land (divine ownership and divine gift) was associated in some way with every major thread in Israel’s theology. The promise of land was an essential part of the patriarchal election tradition. The maintenance of the covenant relationship and the security of life in the land were bound together. Divine
judgment eventually meant expulsion from the land, until the restored relationship was symbolized in the return to the land. The land, then, stood like a fulcrum in the relationship between God and Israel (see its position in Lev. 26:40–45). It was a monumental, tangible witness both to that divine control of history within which the relationship had been established, and also to the moral and practical demands which that relationship entailed.93
God’s ultimate ownership is emphasized with the term תתֻמִצְ with the lamed preposition, which is found only here and in 25:30, making it a virtual hapax legomenon. The gloss,
“in perpetuity,” is the right concept, but not the best translation. Instead, it ought to be translated “finally handed over.” The root צָת carries the connotation of “silence” or “put מַ
an end to.”94 In other words, the seller’s claim is “silenced” or “ended.”95 The term has been found in Akkadian contracts from Ugarit where it establishes that the transaction is permanent and irrevocable.96 The syntax of verse 30, where the term is used again, matches the typical Akkadian syntax exactly, thus indicating that תתֻמִצְלִ is an ancient
92 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2185.
93 Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 201. Wright argues that their status as sojourners is not an infringement of rights, but a granting of rights because it put each Israelite in a relationship of “protected dependency.”
94 HALOT, s.v. “ צת .” מ
95 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2184.
96 The ANE parallel to תתֻמִצְלִ was originally found by Rabinowitz. See Jaob J. Rabinowitz,
“Biblical Parallel to a Legal Formula from Ugarit,” VT 8, no. 1 (January 1958): 95. This ANE parallel can be read in Ignace J. Gelb, Michael P. Streck, and University of Chicago, eds., Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956), 16:94. A thorough discussion and summary of the evidence can be found in Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2184. See Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus: Ṿa-Yiḳra, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 174.
legal term.97 In these types of transactions, the land was sold at full price, which then qualified it for תתֻמִצְלִ. Any land not sold at full price was subject to the deror (release) in a misharum proclamation. Leviticus 25:23 is clarifying that a “sale of redemption” is not
לִ
צְ
מִ
תֻ
ת , or “not finally handed over.” The use of this term provides an important insight into the practice of redemption and general prices. It is likely that the rights of field usage were sold below fair market value.98 While this probable practice diminished the benefit to the impoverished seller, it served as an incentive to the buyer.
Yahweh’s dual ownership of the land and the nation sets the stage for the command in Leviticus 25:24, “And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.” The practice of redemption is enforced by the Jubilee. If Israelites do not allow redemption or are unable to redeem land (and later, each other), then the Jubilee ensures this happens. Redemption was necessary in order to protect the system of egalitarian land tenure that operated in Israel. The practice of redemption ensured that the social and economic fabric of Israel remained stable. It did this by keeping the land within each clan (economic protection) and keeping the lowest order of family units, the father’s house, together (social protection).
A brief survey of the terms involving redemption is necessary in order to understand the various redemption laws in Leviticus 25:25ff. The verb גָּל carries a range אַ from “recover” to “reclaim” to “buy back” to “redeem.”99 The gloss, “act as a kinsman,”
specifically applies within the context of Leviticus 25.100 Within Leviticus 25, the noun form, הלָּאֻגְּ, can describe the right of redemption (here in verse 24), the price of
97 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2184. See also Kaufman, “A Reconstruction of the Social Welfare Systems,” 284n8, for further discussion of this term’s usage in the extant ANE texts.
98 See also Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 110.
99 HALOT, s.v. “ גָּל .” אַ
100 BDB, s.v. “ גָּל .” When paired with דָּאַ ם , it means “avenger of blood” (םדָּהַלאֵגֹּ).
redemption (25:26, 51, 52), and the time in which redemption can happen (25:29b). The practice of redemption typically involved a purchase of what was taken through the payment of a redemption price by a human mediator.101 The obligation of redemption began with the closest of kin and extended outward into the extended family, broadly staying within the confines of the clan. The גֹּל was responsible to provide financial אֵ
assistance to an impoverished family member, receive restitution money on behalf of a dead relative (Num 5:8), serve as the avenger of blood in the case of wrongful death (Num 35:12-19), and assist family members in lawsuits (Job 19:25; Prov 23:11; Jer 50:34). This practice is exemplified in Boaz’s redemption of Ruth and Naomi in Ruth 4 and in Jeremiah’s purchase of Hanamel’s field in Jeremiah 32:7-12.102
Theologically, the idea of redemption carries with it the memory of the Exodus redemption. The Lord purchased Israel in the Exodus (e.g, Exod 6:6; Deut 7:8; 9:26) and so now demands that they likewise redeem each other and each other’s property. The intimate connection between the Exodus redemption and Israel’s own practice of redemption is captured well by R. L. Hubbard, Jr.:
Theologically, the divine mandate of redemption (vv. 23-24) implements on Israelite soil the redemption won by Yahweh in Egypt (vv. 42, 55), lest Israel produce its own cruel Pharaohs and impoverished slaves. To deny redemption is to infringe on Yahweh’s rights (i.e. to enslave people belonging to him) and, in effect, to annul the gains of the Exodus. Here divine grace safeguards Israel’s freedom and social equality, and promotes Israel’s ideal of family unity.103
The theological backdrop of the Exodus obligates Israelites to take on the role of Yahweh
101 See Leland Ryken, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas Penney, and Daniel G Reid, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 698; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2187. See also chap. 2 of this dissertation, pp. 15-20, for the practice of redemption in the ANE.
102 Boaz’s redemption of Ruth is complicated, as it appears to conflate the laws for redeeming fields with the law of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10). Despite these difficulties, both Boaz and his son Obed are called גֹּל , in addition to the anonymous redeemer who waives his rights (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:12; אֵ
4:14). showing a concrete example of how laws of redemption were practiced and were part-and-parcel of Israel’s life. A fantastic discussion of the practice of redemption in the book of Ruth can be found in Block.
Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, NAC, vol. 6 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 707-24.
103 R. L. Hubbard, Jr., “Redemption,” in Alexander Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 717.
as גֹּל . In fact, redemption was a way of life for Israel, with all kinds of things, situations, אֵ
and people’s standings in need of redemption.104 This summarized Israel’s “central ethical ideal” with Yahweh’s redemption of Israel playing itself out in Yahweh’s demand that Israelite masters generously supply departing slaves (Deut 15:13-15), provide food for the poor through gleaning rights (Deut 24:19-22), and treat the underprivileged with justice (Deut 24:17-18).105 The redemptive trajectory of Israel’s life began with
Yahweh’s redemption of them and climaxed at the Jubilee, where the entire nation once again experienced redemption. The legislation of Leviticus 25:23ff. obligates Israelites to effect this redemption before the Jubilee if they are able to do so. Verse 23 demands that they redeem the land. Verses 48-52 demand that Israelites also redeem each other if they are sold to a foreigner as a slave. Israel mimics Yahweh’s redemption by redeeming one another and preventing the oppressive conditions of Egypt from happening within the land and society of Israel. Through mimicking Yahweh’s redemption, Israel was encouraged to remember the Exodus and to remember Yahweh’s great mercy on their behalf. The Exodus created Israel and then continued to define and inform the way they lived their lives from generation to generation.
Leviticus 25:25–54: The Three