Clueless

She said to them, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.  I went out full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has witnessed against me and the Almighty has afflicted me?” Ruth 1:20-21

Lord has brought me back – Translation is an art and a science. Anyone who has ever used the popular computer-generated translation programs knows that mechanical conversion is often inadequate. But when it comes to the Bible, we assume that God watches over language. That is a huge mistake! What happens in Hebrew is often so subtle, so dependent on syntax, so culturally conditioned that it just can’t be translated! That doesn’t mean we can’t understand the text. It just means that we need a lot more explanation than we typically find in translation. This verse is a good example.

Yael Ziegler notes the following:

A seminal phrase in [Naomi’s] speech, “I left full and God has returned me empty,” contains several peculiarities. While Hebrew syntax generally puts the subject first, the second part of the sentence awkwardly places the subject at the end: “I went full and empty returned me God.” Moreover, the word I (ani) that is placed at the beginning of the sentence is repetitive, inasmuch as the verb form halakhti (I went) already contains the first person. An added pronoun, therefore, expresses emphasis. This phrase is consciously designed to open with Naomi’s ani, her focus on herself, and to close with a reference to God. In a strikingly allusive manner, Naomi may be explaining why she deserves her miserable situation. In fact, she seems to suggest, it was the “I,” my selfishness, my focus on my own needs, which caused my departure, while the final say was had by God, who justly brought about the shameful state of my return.[1]

Try translating that!

What’s the lesson here? Is it just that we have been deluded into thinking that we know what the Bible says because we can read our English versions? No, it seems to me that the lesson is two-fold. First, translations are always suspect. Even the very best require lots of additional explanation in order to capture the full original meaning. But secondly, the lesson is about you and me. Naomi thought she rightly deserved punishment because of her selfishness. But even though she recognized this flaw, she continued on the same path. Her actions toward Ruth display the same attitude that got her into this situation. She doesn’t change until Ruth’s hesed radically alters everything. Naomi has a God of reprisal instead of a God of grace. It takes the foreigner’s action to restore Naomi’s view of God. The syntax of her statement is only a clue to her inner confusion and distress. It is a clue lost in translation. And that’s why it’s so important. We also lose perspective when our lives are consumed with our own needs. We translate the goodness of God into harsh rejection. We forget that we are writing the text of our lives. The syntax depends on us.

God doesn’t change. He is just as concerned with our lives today as He was yesterday, last year or before we were born. His mercy never fails. His love never diminishes. But we translate according to our perspective. We view God through the lens of our circumstances and quite often He appears at the end of the sentences we write. Perhaps the lesson from Naomi is not just about Hebrew syntax but about the syntax of selfishness. Perhaps we need to re-write our stories.

Topical Index: Ruth 1:20-21, syntax, translation, selfishness

[1] Yael Ziegler, Ruth, p. 177-178.

 

A NOTE ABOUT “Jane” AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING

As of this morning, the appeal about “Jane” and her ministry under the bridge will be removed from the web site.  I know most of you read about her, but Judi pointed out that for her safety we need to make sure the picture isn’t distributed.  So thank you all who decided to help.  I will be back in touch with each of you shortly.  But for now I will take down the message and communicate all the news to each of those who are helping in separate emails.

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
laurita hayes

“The syntax depends on us.” Skip, I have suspected for a long time that the Bible is a different Book to everyone who reads it because of the paradigm they bring to it, for our personal paradigms are the lens we filter our perception and experience of the world through, and how we perceive God’s Word can be no exception. Because of this I think it is only by grace that any of us can understand any of it, because only when we experience the transcendence of ourselves is there any room at all for God to speak to us, but it is only by grace that any of us experience that. (This is also why I don’t think the Bible was written for unbelievers, and should almost never be quoted to anyone who is not already to the point where they are reading it for themselves.) This is where the Holy Spirit must accompany the Word. Somehow, His paradigm must overwrite ours before the Truth is free to speak, but this is a condition that necessarily lies far, far beyond the ability of any translator, for sure.

“To the pure all things are pure” speaks to the relative ability of a person to ‘hear’ what God really has to say to them according to the set of the heart, and not the bias of the translator. This is what gives me hope when I read that Word, for what it has to convey is more a musical sense that resonates with the ‘ring’ of truth than it does with any power of meaning of any words in any language. I thank God for the power of the Holy Spirit and for His promise that He will accompany any of His own Words, for it is only then that the truth can be rendered efficacious to any of us, no matter how poorly (or well) translated it may be. Halleluah! (Not to diminish in the least our need for good translators or for Skips to be willing to strike that bell of truth with fresh hammers. Thank you for your willingness!)

Trash Boykin

Skip
I would like to be included in those who help Jane.
Trish

Rich Pease

Laurita speaks the truth.
God’s message of truth is revealed one person at a time,
each one “understanding” it from a divinely given understanding.

Laura

Laurita, Beautifully put and Skip, not bad either. 🙂

David Williams

Would you want or do you live a ‘syntaxed’ life; a life where events and thoughts create a well-lived life, in the human community? And what would that well lived life look like? And who would or what would shape the parameters of such an existence? And who are the ‘translators’ of such a life? Our parents, their parents, our church, our pastor, our “shrink”, our political ‘talking-heads’, our favorite writers and thinkers? All these things shape and direct us on our passage of time, called ‘our lives’. So, it seems very important to recognize, who and what shapes our thinking; what or who ‘gives’ to each and every one of us, our ‘personal paradigm’. Some may object and say ‘no-one’ shapes my thinking, and hence my actions. I am doing it ‘my way’! That can seem all, well and true, and that may be why we make the same mistakes over and over. Does that make for a ‘well-lived’ life within the human community? In some cases, history will decide, or the next generation observations and inherited actions, learned from us will decide. Each of us may be the only ‘bible’ anyone ever ‘reads’. And an example of a ‘life well-lived’ may be the only inheritance the next generation will ever need. So dig, study, dig some more and ask questions. So, ‘what’s in your paradigm’?

john mccastle

1. We would like to be part of supporting “Jane”.
2. Liked your book except, any book you have written or will write is awesome and useful in understanding the “Word” and growing to know Him better.

David R

Hello Skip and Others,

As I read your reflection, and as I have read the story of this family on numerous occasions, I was always taken with Ruth’s devotion and willingness to be a part of Naomi’s paradigm. Your recent reflections have me thinking of Naomi and those of us who at some time or other in life respond like her to life. Was not Ruth with Naomi in the true mire and pits of Naomi’s despair? Her promise to stick by her is not insincerely made. Orpah chooses to return home. David Williams’ comment along with your reflection and Laurita’s comment emphasizIng being thoroughly instructed by the Spirit of God, have me wondering, can we find ourselves where we are either a Ruth person to someone or a Naomi person to someone? Urban life did not exist then but the need for relationship has always been a God-given constant. Yes, no one ever cared for me like Jesus, but YHVH is forming a Bride that He will one day come to carry away! David Williams is right about our being assessed by others in this life or at the end of our life. We read the works of others who influence our reactions and stance to life. I think though they fall short of being what Ruth was to Naomi.

I believe Skip has voiced on occasion that community is where it happens; Bingo, Ruth and Naomi were the founders of a community!
David R

Madeleine

I’m thankful I have a few chapters left in life. I can’t rewrite my past but I can rewrite my ending. God was not first in my life for so long and it made life empty. I was chasing after the American Dream. What a waste.

I’m grateful to YHVH he can use my past to glorify Him. May I be up to the task. That is my desire to live a life pleasing to Him.

Karen

I have been Naomi for sure. Ruth, well I’m trying. The mother-daughter relationship. It is a difficult one. Daugter-in- law and an outsider to boot.
The hesed Ruth shows to Naomi is incredible. I bought your lectures on this wonderful story of relationship. Fantastic they were. I highly reccommend.

Ester

Just as in the case of human love, knowledge precedes feelings, that I assume is what Ruth picked up from Noami, though Noami ‘s feelings of regret, remorse, shame and guilt may not be groundless, she would have been a good example to Ruth who, saw through her emotions of remorse, decidedly preferred to be with Naomi than to return to a different lifestyle/ culture she had been exposed to being married to Naomi’s son.
In working as a gleaner, Ruth was demonstrating humility, her willingness to do menial labor for the one she loved. That says heaps for the bonding between her and her mother in law.
We will lose perspective when our lives are consumed with our own needs. Ruth was such a selfless person, was richly rewarded and blessed.

Indeed. “The syntax of her statement is only a clue to her inner confusion and distress. It is a clue lost in translation”, not only in Noami’s case, in Ruth’s as well.