p. 9 | An Instructive Type; the Go’el by George W. Draper

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 12, 1908

An Instructive Type; the Go’el

By George W. Draper

GEORGE W. DRAPER

Not only in the services of the sanctuary, as prescribed by the Levitical law, but in all the institutions of the Old Testament may be traced a symbolical character. It is as if He who knows the end from the beginning had so overruled in the development of society and in the course of history as to present to this unbelieving age an overwhelming mass of testimony to the divine origin of Christianity.

Many of these institutions which were typical of heavenly things served at the time a utilitarian and even beneficent purpose. Of these may be noted as examples the year of release for bond-servants, the year of rest for the land, the jubilee, and the customs and regulations concerning the Go’el. But by far the greater importance, especially to us for whom the record of these institutions has been preserved (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11), attaches to their symbolical meaning. Let us thus consider the institution of the Go’el.

Go’el is a Hebrew word which has no equivalent in the English language, for the reason that we have no such institution among us. Its full meaning will be developed as we proceed, but as a preliminary definition we might say that a Go’el was one who stood as the representative of another in certain relations to other individuals and to society. It is variously translated in the Old Testament; as, “near kinsman,” “redeemer,” “one that hath right to redeem,” “avenger,” etc.

In the patriarchal age—and in Oriental countries the custom has continued to the present time—the unit of society was not the individual, but the family. All the members of one family were united by the bond of relationship and common interest, and stood together as one man in dealing with neighboring families. An injury done to an individual was an injury to the family to which he belonged, and all were bound to assist in securing redress; on the other hand, an offense committed by an individual was reckoned as chargeable to the entire family to which he belonged. See Genesis 34; 2 Sam. 21: 1-9.

In minor matters, however, the entire kindred of a man were not required to exert themselves to secure his rights. This duty fell upon his father, his brothers, and in default of these, upon his nearest kinsman, however remote the relationship. This individual was known as his Go’el.

A man’s Go’el could require, and it was his duty to demand, the performance of all the obligations which were owing by others to the person he represented. On the other hand, it was his duty, and others could require him, to perform all duties owed by his kinsman, including those mentioned in Lev. 6: 1-7.

The chief obligations of the Go’el were those which had to do with the perpetuation of the family and its inheritance. These are the ones which are specifically enjoined in the Old Testament, and the ones with which we are chiefly concerned as types.

The stern law, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and “a life for a life,” rigidly prevailed, and in case of a man’s death by murder it was his Go’el’s duty to exact the penalty. There were no civil officers whose duty it was to execute the murderer; he died by the hand of the murdered man’s Go’el. “The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.” Num. 35: 19; Deut. 19: 11, 12.

The Go’el’s duty to his murdered kinsman was not ended with having avenged him. If a man had died, whether by murder or in any other manner, and left no son, it was his Go’el’s duty to take the widow and “raise up seed for his brother” or kinsman. Deut. 25: 5, 6. The perpetuation of the family, that no family should perish in Israel, was of supreme importance, and the man who refused to perform this duty was publicly insulted, and his name became a reproach. Deut. 25: 7-10.

It is commonly supposed that this service was performed only by a brother of the deceased, but this is not the fact. It was the specific duty of a man’s Go’el, his “nearest kinsman,” whether that was a brother or a more distant relative. See Deut. 25: 5, 6, marginal reading. That this was true is shown in the book of Ruth, which would seem to have been written especially to illustrate this phase of a Go’el’s duty.

Elimelech and his wife Naomi, with their two sons, in time of famine went to the land of Moab to dwell. The sons married women of Moab, and died without issue. After ten years, Naomi, then a widow and childless, returned to Israel, accompanied by Ruth, the widow of one of her sons. Ruth went to glean in the harvest-field, and met Boaz, who showed her special favors. When this was related to Naomi, she recognized Boaz as belonging to the kindred of Elimelech, her deceased husband, and, she supposed, the Go’el of her son, the deceased husband of Ruth. “The man is near of kin unto us,” a Go’el, she said to Ruth. Ruth 2: 20.

Naomi then directed Ruth how to proceed to call the attention of Boaz to the duty he owed to his deceased kinsman. Ruth found favor in the eyes of Boaz, and he expressed a willingness to assume the obligations of a Go’el; but he was better informed regarding the family relationships than was Naomi, who was a member of the family only by marriage, and had been absent from the country for ten years. He informed Ruth that there was one nearer of kin, and therefore with a better right than

himself; but that if this other kinsman refused, he would fulfil the obligation himself.

“Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s: and I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I can not redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself: for I can not redeem it. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.

“And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. . . . So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife.” Ruth 4: 1-13.

The first son born of such a marriage was counted as the son of the deceased man, and inherited his land. All subsequent sons belonged to the Go’el himself. In case but one son was born, the Go’el would be reckoned childless, and consequently without an heir to preserve his name and family. It was in view of this contingency that the kinsman in Ruth 4 refused to perform his obligation, “lest I mar mine own inheritance,” and received the legal tokens of the contempt which was felt for “that man that will not build up his brother’s house.” Deut. 25: 7-10.

Not only the contempt of men, but the displeasure of the Lord was visited upon the man who shirked this duty, as may be seen from the penalty inflicted in another such case, as recorded in Gen. 38: 1-10. The subsequent actions of Tamar were not so reprehensible, in view of the law and custom regarding the duties of a Go’el, as they would have been under other circumstances. She merely resorted to strategy to secure the rights guaranteed her by law and custom, and of which she had been fraudulently deprived by Judah. It is to be noted that the sons born of this union were reckoned as legitimate, and one of them is included in the ancestry of our Lord.

The reference to the redemption of land in the narrative in the book of Ruth brings to view another of the rights and duties of the Go’el. As it was of supreme importance that the family should be perpetuated, it was also of great importance that its inheritance should be preserved, so that no family in Israel should ever be reduced to a permanent condition of poverty.

To this end the land of Israel, after its division among the different families in the days of Joshua, was declared to be the inalienable possession of such families. A man might indeed sell the parcel of land of which he held possession, but such sale was only in effect a lease. In the year of jubilee it returned to his possession, or to that of his heirs. Lev. 25: 13, 28, 39-41. As the jubilee recurred every fiftieth year, in all ordinary cases the family inheritance would be entire at least once during the lifetime of each individual, no matter how prodigal he or his fathers may have been.

But he also possessed the right to redeem it at any time, and if he was unable to redeem it, his Go’el had the right, and if he was able, it was his duty to redeem it. Lev. 25: 25. And if his kinsman, on account of his poverty, had been reduced to bondage, it was the right and the duty of the Go’el to redeem him also. Lev. 25: 47-49.

In drawing a lesson for ourselves from the institution we have been considering, the first and foremost feature, and one so prominent that it can not be overlooked, is the great doctrine of substitution—one individual standing in the place of another, and in his stead paying his debts, discharging his duties, and fulfilling all the obligations which that other had failed or had been unable to meet himself. The Go’el was thus a most expressive type of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in order that he might be of kin to us, and thus have a right to stand in our place as our Go’el, was born of a woman, of the stock of Abraham and the seed of David. Heb. 2: 11-14. He who denies or ignores the doctrine of substitution has missed the meaning of the entire Old Testament, and the New Testament as well.

But we must here confine ourselves to the typical meaning of the Go’el. Besides being in general a type of our Saviour standing as man’s substitute, the Go’el, in performing each of the duties enumerated in this article is a significant type of our Lord.

Satan, who “was a murderer from the beginning,” overcame and destroyed our first parents, despoiled them of their inheritance, and reduced their posterity to bondage. The Son of God, taking Adam’s nature in order that he might be of kin to him, assumed the position of his Go’el. He undertook the task of avenging him by destroying “him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2: 14); of redeeming him and his posterity from their condition of bondage (Gal. 4: 3-5), and through the new birth raising them up as a new seed unto his brother; and finally of restoring to them their lost inheritance. Eph. 1: 14. Blessed be he who is mighty to perform all that he has promised.

Beloved, has the enemy in the insolence of his power done you grievous injury, which you are powerless to avenge? Have you, because of your own or your fathers’ weakness, fallen into bondage, galling to endure? Have you lost your claim to, or ceased to hope for, the inheritance which is the natural right of a child? Then take courage. Despair no longer. Exercise the faith of Job, who, in his deepest affliction, bereft of kindred and friends, exclaimed, “I know that my Go’el liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.” One who is mighty, One who is nigh of kin to you, is ready to avenge all your wrongs, to redeem you from bondage, and to place you in everlasting possession of an inheritance more glorious than you can conceive.

Centralia, Ill.