Phillip Lerner, «Redefining h)lth. An Assurance of Israel’s Return
to the Land in Jethro’s Covenant», Vol. 87 (2006) 402-411
Though it is recognized that Exod 18,1-12 contains treaty making elements, there
seems to be very little evidence of the nature of this treaty. The term h)lth is reexamined
and redefined as “the suffering that is encountered due to the helpless
nature of being forsaken”. The phrase wnt)cm r#) h)lth lk, found in Exod 18,8,
is demonstrated to be a technical phrase with certain common characteristics that
is used as surety that Israel will be fully restored to their land. In addition to
providing more details of Jethro’s covenant, this phrase, in combination with
several other terms in Exod 18,1-12, narrows the possibilities regarding the
covenant’s nature and function.
410 Phillip Lerner
*
**
Now let us combine the elements of djyw, hbwf, and wntaxm rça halth lk in
order to see if it is possible to piece together what it is that Jethro agrees to.
There are two prominent options; Jethro either agreed 1) to form a general
covenant with Israel or 2) to sanction their conquest. Much of this hinges on
what hbwf is understood to mean.
The term hbwf is capable of being interpreted according to either of these
two scenarios. As we have shown from Num 10,29-32, hbwf might mean the
fruits of covenantal blessing, including land, and economic and agricultural
success (37). If hbwf is used here in too general a sense, it is difficult to
understand what Jethro ratifies. However, if it is taken to include conquest or
presence in a territory, then it is possible that Jethro agrees to the justice of
their claims or agrees to sanction their actions. This implies a choice between
two claimants of sorts. Just such an exalted view of Jethro seems to be present
in Exod 18, and is especially evident in Jethro’s role in establishing the
hierarchy of Israel’s judges. This role also fits better with the general use of
djyw as a gift of land or position, usually from a lord to a vassal (38). Though
this is not a direct gift, it does contain more of the standard elements of such
usage than mere agreement.
However, there is still the possibility that hbwf just means “covenantâ€.
wntaxm rça halth lk would be used in this case to demonstrate the worthiness
of Israel, or that they are a safe bet. If this is the case, djyw also loses some of
its specific nature as a concrete, one-sided gift, usually involving land, other
valuables or positions. However, the one-sided element can still be
understood to be present in the fact that nothing is demanded as payment for
this covenant. The difficulty with this scenario is that it says that Jethro agreed
to all the hbwf that the Lord had made for Israel. If this is a covenant, the
wording suggests that Jethro accepted God’s covenant with Israel, not a
covenant between himself and Israel (39). Though this view has certainly been
suggested in the past, beyond any other objections, the use of
wntaxm rça halth lK seems to negate this understanding. In the other two uses,
the phrase wntaxm rça halth lk is brought as a sign that the return to the land
and good fortune is assured. To understand it as a general proof of the Lord’s
greatness would not be specific enough.
The use of djyw, a term of unconditional agreement, may be explained in
either scenario. In the first scenario, it is used to agree to a covenant of mutual
(37) Therefore, even if hbwf is understood as “a treaty of friendshipâ€, and since there
still seems to be some intention of at least the good things done along the way, the context
of wntaxm rça halth lk serves as evidence of the restoral of the fruits of this treaty of
friendship.
(38) Muffs describes most of the uses he presents as being unentgeltliche gifts, thus
necessitating the language of exuberance to establish the transfer, “the validity of the
conveyance is secured by the donor’s energetic declaration of his total willingness and
volition to part with his property for all time. After such a declaration, the donor could not
later invalidate the transaction by claiming that the grant was made with mental
reservationâ€; MUFFS, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, 131.
(39) This has been suggested by traditional Jewish commentators, a prominent modern
proponent of this view can be found in A.H.J. GUNNEWEG, “Mose in Midianâ€, ZTK 61
(1964) 1-9.