Social Security
“And he shall be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age.” Ruth 4:15
Restorer – Let’s do a little rabbinic exegesis. The women in Naomi’s circle told her, “Blessed be YHWH. He has not left you without a redeemer (go’el) that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be a restorer of life to you . . .” But who are they talking about? Are they telling Naomi that her grandson, Obed, will be the one who restores life to her and takes care of her in her old age? That’s what it looks like, but this isn’t the way a rabbi would look at this verse. A rabbi would ask, “Where do I find the phrase ‘restorer of life’ in other parts of Scripture? And what does that tell me about this verse?”
So, where do we find this phrase? How about Psalm 23:3? “He restores my soul.” Of course, it doesn’t say “soul.” The Hebrew word is nephesh, exactly the same word we find in Ruth. The verb is shuv, the same verbal root for the word in Ruth (meshiv). Who restores the person (nephesh)? God, of course! Not a grandson.
We find the expression in Job 33:26. This text is about the restoration of righteousness. Once again, the verb is shuv and the actor is God. God’s restoration of life appears in Isaiah 38:16 and Lamentations 1:11. These examples show us that life is God’s province. He gives it (as Ruth discovered – nathan) and He restores it. The women who speak to Naomi are not suggesting that she rely only on her grandson. They are blessing YHWH who has once again demonstrated in tangible form His care over life itself. His name will be famous in Israel because He has answered the cry of an old woman and provided a family for her. He will restore her and sustain her through the gift of a grandson. In fact, the proclamation of Naomi’s friends is prophetic, for the true go’el (kinsman redeemer) is God Himself given as a child in the midst of life, who will restore us.
Of course, we could read this at the pashat level and walk away satisfied that Naomi has a grandson to look after her. But there is more to the text than a comment on Hebrew social security. We need to look at the hint (remez) that pushes us to see the connections to the Holy One of Israel. We need to see His hand behind the stage, guiding the lives of these women to bring about His purposes as the real redeemer. The son given to Ruth is only a portend of another Son, given to Mary. Oh, yes, and by the way, shuv has a very interesting pictograph. Shin-Vav-Bet means “securing the house that consumes.” What is that? It is a picture of safeguarding the house of the people God has created as His own. We, the followers of YHWH, are those who consume. Our God, the Holy One of Israel, restores us to life by securing the house. How does He do that? He does it with the gift of a Son in the midst of life, of course.
Now you know why Ruth is in the Tanakh. This time, it’s all about us, isn’t it?
Topical Index: shuv, restore, go’el, redeemer, Ruth 4:15
This is a helpful example of the “Rabbinic” approach to understanding the scriptures. So unlike those who take a literal, word for word approach to Scripture as in some of the more conservative Christian churches.
Skip – forgive me – this is a complete and total non-sequitur regarding today’s topic, but since we tend to associate Psalm 19:1 with the starry heavens only, this link shows that His glory is declared in the daytime as well! I wanted to share it with the community as it was posted today.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz319.htm
Blessings,
John
Skip: I find it hard to understand that the rabbi of Ruth’s day would be looking at the Psalms, Isaiah, Job (possible), or Lamentations. They would not have been written, some for hundreds of years. Today, yes, we would look at all these to compare the words and make comparisons between nuances.
Nick–Blossom, Texas
I would find it hard to understand this from the point of view of a rabbi in Ruth’s time too. There weren’t any rabbis in Ruth’s time. The point is not what we find in the text in the time of Ruth. The point is that rabbinic interpretation of the passage hundreds of years after Ruth was written draws these connections. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.