• For examples of the way in which RV haa endeavoured to express this idiom (originallv Hebrew) in English, see Westcott Lessons o/ R V of NT. p. 32 ff .
GOEL
Snj is 'to make a claim,' vindicare, in the sense of claiming something tliat has been lost or for- feited, ' to resume a claim or right which has lapsed ' (Driver) ; hence the goel is etymologically ' tne claimant,' vindex, in practice ' the next of kin.' We shall consider the rights and privileges of the god, (i.) in civil and (ii.) in criminal law.
i. In c/vil law the following were tlie chief rights and respon.Hihilities of the goel. (a) When, through stress of circumstances, a Hebrew was compelled to sell part of his patrimony, it was the duty of 'his kinsman that is next to him' (UV) — in or- dinary language his next of kin — ' to redeem (Vkj) that which his brother had sold' (Lv 25^). This duty is in accordance with one of the fundamental ideas at the ba.sis of the Hebrew law of real estate, by whicli land was the inalienable property of the clan (nnpv?). According to the priestly legislation, indeed, the clan or tribe was in its turn the feu- datory of J", from whom, as the real owner of the soil, the land was held in fee (Lv 25^). In the particular case under considuralion, the various degrees of kinship are not stated, but they were no doubt identical with those laid down for the analogous case next to be considered (under 6) ; that is, the right of redemption (n?NJ 05^9 Jer 32') appertained lirst to full brothers of the vendor ; wliom failing or who renouncing, it passed to his uncles on the father's side ; whom failing, to their sons, i.e. the vendor's cousins on the father's side ; whom failing, to 'any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family' (inpy'p Lv 25"). From the historical instance of the purcliase by Jeremiah of Ins cousin Hananiel's property in Anathoth (Jer 32'"'-), it appears that the goel, or next of kin, had the nght of pre-emption, or the right to the refusal of the property Defore it was exposed in the open market, as well as the right of redemption alter it had been sold. In either case the prophet was his cousin's gnel. Under tliis head, as it seems to us, must be placed the much-disputed case of Kuth the Moabitess (which many authorities regard as a case of levirate marriage), for the hrst and chief part of the transaction before the elilers of tlie city (Ku 4"-) is clearly the redemption of 'the parcel of land which was our brother Elimelech's' (4*"°). To this, the primary iduty of the goel, the takin" of Kuth in marriage is to be regarded as subordinate. Nothing is said of the precise rela- tionship subsisting between Naomi — who here, contrary to the Pentateuchal laws, appears as her husband's heir — and the true goel, nor between him and Boaz, to whom, on the former renouncing, the ri<;ht of redemption fell. Throughout the Bk. of Ruth our translators have rendered the Hebrew gO'H by ' kinsman.'
(6) A second dutj' of the qoel in civil law was to redeem, not the property, but the person, of his kinsman, in the event of the latter being com- pelled by poverty to sell himself as a slave to a stranger or a sojourner (Lv25""'"'). The order in which kinship was to be reckoned has already been given. For the deUiils of the transactions under this and the foregoing head, see the art. Jur.ii.KK. F"ron\ this function of the goei as a rciliemer' there has proceeded an extensive use of the verb gn'al in the sense of 'redeem,' with God Himself for the subject. Thus Cod is said to redeem Israel from the bondn''e of F-gypt (Ex 6* 15", Ps 74^ etc.) and from exile in Baby Ionia. The idea of J" as His people's goel is a special characteristic of Doutero-Isaiah (41" 43" 44'- ** and oft.), OS is the correlated idea of His people as the re»leemed (o-^ik;) of J" (51'" 6-1" 03', cf. ao'l.
(c) A third duty of the god is mentioned in- cidentally in the course of an or<linance supple- menting a previous law regarding certain cases of restitution (Lv C". MT 5'-' ■*). The new law
GOEL
223
provides for a case where the injured person maj nave died before paj'ment of the conscience-money ; in which ciuse the money, it is assumed, is to oe paid to the goel of the deceased (Nu 5'), whom failing, to the priest.
ii. In criminal law the next of kin had laid upon him the duty of enforcing the claim for satisfaction for the blood of a munlered kinsman ; in this capacitj' be received the special name of the guel had-drun, 'the avenger (AV also ' re- venger') of blood.' The custom of blood-revenge, as it is called, is almo.st world-wide in its range, and is especially characteristic of society in a cer- tain stage of ita development (see esp. the work of A. H. Post, Entwiekclungsqeschichte rfe.« Fnini- lienrerhts, H 15-18 'Die Blutraclie,' with the modern literature on p. 113). It rests ultimately on the two fundamental principles of the sacreil- ness of human life (cf. Gn 9'» 'whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed '), and the solidarity of the elan or tribe in primitive societies. \\ hen, with the advance of c\\ liization and the gradual evolution of the state, the duly of safeguarding the rights of the community passes to the state, blood-revenge is obsolescent or ob- solete. Hence blood-revenge as practised by im- perfectly organized communities has often been compared to war waged by modem states for the vindication of their rights. The Semitic peoples have practised this custom from prehistoric times, and the earliest Hebrew legislation, that of the Book of the Covenant (see below), found it in full operation. Indeed it is not too much to say that the aim of the Hebrew legislators, from lirst to last, was so to regulate the practice that the shedder of blood should be, as far as i>ossible, protected from the hasty and unconsidered ven- geance of the next of kin, by providing for the judicial investigation of each particular ca.se, and the safe-keeping of the accused until such investi- gation was completed.