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 409
However, if this is meant to disarm Edom’s fear of invasion and of general
plunder then the reference to “the angel of the Lord†(v. 16) makes little
sense. Such a reference presents a powerful image, one that is likely to further
frighten Edom. Also, unlike the assumed context in Exod 18, the “travailâ€
includes descent to Egypt and evil treatment by the Egyptians. In response to
their “cryâ€, the Lord sends his angel to save them.
The difficulty of the contrast between an appeal for mercy to the weak
and the use of an angel may be resolved by our proposed understanding of the
phrase wntaxm rça halth lk. Moses appeals to a kinsman, relying both on his
relational ties but also his people’s knowledge of Israel’s history, land, and
god. The “travails†are not mentioned so much as an appeal to the king of
Edom’s pity but as proof that Israel would continue on into their own land (32).
Since the Lord had acted mightily in freeing Israel, reversing the helpless,
homeless state, so too he would also bring them back into their own land.
They are appealing to the intent of their god, which was so strongly displayed
in his actions; this conveyed to Edom that, regardless of their own desires,
they were on a path to their land and that their God would not allow them to
stop for long (33).
In Neh 9,32 it is God who is being addressed, and wntaxm rça halth lk is
now used as a petition for a full restoral of the fortune of those who had
returned to the land. halt in this passage is all the hardship “that has come
upon us…since the time of the kings of Assyria until today†(34). There is an
obvious connection between the exile and other related trouble and the term
halth. Unlike Num 20,14-21 and Exod 18, Neh 9,32 is set after Israel’s return
to the land; it sits between the beginning of the return and the ideal fulfillment
of that return (35). The Lord has brought them back; however they are not fully
sovereign in their own land. The arrival of the expected blessings has not yet
occurred. God is called on to complete his side of the bargain (36).
(32) This is as Ashley describes “how the people got to Kadesh, and that they were
brought there under divine leadershipâ€, though he is at a loss to explain the function of the
angelic vanguard; T.R. ASHLEY, The Book of Numbers (Grand Rapids 1993) 390.
(33) As a side note, Mic 6 provides us with evidence that the opposite of “forsakingâ€
Israel is to do just that. As proof that the Lord had not forsaken them, he cites certain actions
in his defense. “For I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the
house of bondage†(Mic 6,4).
(34) Neh 9,32. Eskenazi correctly notes the distinctive language that marks the shift in
the various subsections of this plea. When Israel describes their history with the term “theyâ€
(vv. 11-31), a distinction is intended between their ancestors and the present group. This
distinction emphasizes God’s faithfulness and “their†rebellion. v. 32 marks the beginning
of “we†language (vv. 32-36). However, Ezkenazi also sets off vv. 6-10 as uniquely
separate from vv. 11-31 and related in language and intent with v. 32. So, vv. 6-10 which
contain some similarity in language with Exod 18, are also structurally related to v. 32; T.C.
ESKENAZI, “Nehemiah 9–10:Structure and Significanceâ€, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3
(2001) 2.7-2.19.
(35) “The author has therefore only to hold up to God the present situation of life in the
land under a foreign power which creams off its benefits (vv 36-37) for the irony of the
contrast between divinely determined history and current short-fall to make its inherent
request most pointedly apparentâ€. H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco
1985) 317.
(36) In reference to v. 32, Williamson says, “The transitional verse…contains the only
explicit request of the whole prayer; it appears to be slight, but in the context it says all that
is required: ‘do not belittle all the hardship which has befallen us’†(ibid).