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.
Redefining halth. An Assurance of Israel’s Return
to the Land in Jethro’s Covenant
Both C.H.M. Brekelmans and F.C. Fensham were the first to suggest that
Jethro’s involvement with a sacrifice in Exod 18,12 carried the connotation of
some sort of covenant making scene (1). Fensham sought evidence for a
general Israelite-Kenite treaty, though A. Cody focuses on the limited scope of
Exod 18,1-12, shying from Fensham’s more ambitious conclusion (2). B.
Mazar adds to the Kenite hypothesis the element of territorial acquisition. He
claims that “Hobab entered into a family relationship with Moses, attached his
clan to the Israelites, guided them through the wilderness, and finally, through
his descendents, attained land inheritance within Judah in Negeb Arad†(3).
Y. Avishur provided an extra covenantal element beyond the sacrificial
meal when he suggested an improved interpretation of the term djyw (4).
Avishur applied the Ancient Near Eastern meaning of “emphasized agree-
ment†to its use in our passage, thus showing the use of covenantal terms
outside of the treaty meal.
Despite these advances in understanding Exod 18,1-12, the nature of the
covenant is still ambiguous. Also, it has been often assumed that this passage
contains the remnant of a covenant making but is missing important details.
By providing even more details, Avishur’s work could be understood as
somewhat of a challenge to this position. By having Jethro exuberantly agree
to some sort of terms, the covenant making has been brought out of the
shadows a little bit more. The slow collection of concrete details, in proper
order raises the possibility that more might be found in our passage.
If djyw is understood to be a technical term of agreement, the question is
raised, “What is Jethro agreeing to and if it is not listed here why did our text
retain such a formal term?†It would be expected that the terms to which
Jethro is agreeing would be listed somewhere before his agreement. All we
are told is that “Jethro emphatically agreed to all the good which the Lord had
done for Israel, whom he delivered out of the hand of Egypt†(18,9) (5). What
kind of good might Jethro have agreed to?
In Num 10,29-33, Hobab is told that he will receive a portion of the same
good when entering the land that the Israelites will receive. Since this “goodâ€
(1) F.C. FENSHAM, “Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?â€,
BASOR 175 (1964) 51-54 and C.H.W. BREKELMANS, “Exodus xviii and the Origins of
Yahwism in Israelâ€, OTS 10 (1954) 215-224.
(2) A. CODY, “Exodus 18,12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelitesâ€, Biblica 49
(1968) 153-166.
(3) B. MAZAR, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Keniteâ€, JNES 24
(1965) 300.
(4) Y. AVISHUR, “Treaty Terminology in the Moses-Jethro Story (Exodus 18:1-12)â€,
Aula Orientalis 6,2 (1988) 139-147. A good study of this term can be found in Y. MUFFS,
Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (SD 8; Leiden 1973) 128-135.
(5) This is my translation. All other general quotations are from NRSV.