End of the Line
Then those two – Mahlon and Chilion – also died; so the woman was left without her two sons and without her husband. Ruth 1:5 JPS
Without – What Naomi lost completely overshadows what Naomi gained. In her mind, the loss of husband and sons means the loss of everything important to her. In fact, a careful reading reveals the even greater depth of her perceived loss. Did you notice that the text places the sons before the husband? It is bad enough to lose a husband, but the real tipping point in Naomi’s life comes when she loses her two sons. She even refers to the two “sons” with the Hebrew yeladeha which means “children,” not grown men. This is the point where she feels as if life no longer has purpose. This is the place where the future is entirely dark.
You might well empathize with Naomi. The loss of children is one of life’s most excruciating blows. But step back for just a moment, not diminishing her tragedy, and notice that she gives no value at all to her two daughters-in-law. In the midst of this tragedy, she has gained two other relationships, one which becomes the healing relationship of generations. But in Naomi’s mind, her daughters by marriage don’t qualify as her children. In fact, they don’t qualify as anything but a burden – a burden which she is ready to relinquish. Naomi is fixated on her loss, not on what God might bring out of this tragedy. Naomi sees nothing but the grave. She is blind to the deepest commitment she will eventually experience – the hesed of Ruth. Naomi is trapped in the moment.
The Hebrew text doesn’t actually read, “without her sons.” Its unusual actual reading is “she was left from her sons.” There is an intentional contrast with verse 3. She left Bethlehem with her sons. Now she leaves Moab from her sons. The preposition (from) shifts the focus of our attention. The spotlight is not on the sons but rather on Naomi. “From” tells us where this journey starts, not where it ends. Naomi believes that this is the end of her life, but the truth is rather the opposite. This is the beginning point of her life, the point where God intervenes to bring about His purposes. She must leave from her dead sons in order to create the circumstances that will bring King David into the world. Once again we see that Naomi’s horizon is far too limited. Like Hagar, she sees only her pain, not the purposes of El Roi (the God who sees). By the way, the allusion to the story of Hagar is not so hidden. How many years was Naomi in Moab before she started her journey into God’s purposes? How many years was Hagar in the camp of Abraham before she obeyed the direction of El Roi?
Life is often “without.” But when it is, it is up to us to convert the “without” to “from.” “From this point forward” is the direction of the God who sees.
Topical Index: Ruth 1:5, without, from, Hagar, Genesis 16:13
Isn’t there a beautiful parallel with the people of Israel, who lost there children among the goyim, went back to the Land and never saw that part of the ecclesia (the Ruth-part) want, yeh, longs to be part of her heritage and future? But at the moment she wants to be called Mara, bitterness…
Oeps, some typo’s… Sorry!
Come to think of it: some of the ecclesia don’t want to be part of Israel’s heritage and future. They return to their own tradition and lose the chance of being part of a fantastic future, not being able to look past their own misery.
I’ve been working through the text on this and:
וַיָּמוּתוּ גַם־שְׁנֵיהֶם מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הָאִשָּׁה מִשְּׁנֵי יְלָדֶיהָ וּמֵאִישָׁהּ
מַחלוֹן Machlown (prime; a name whose root is sick) כִּליוֹן Kilyown (prime; a name) מָמוֹת muwth (prime; a primitive root ; to die literally or figuratively; causatively to kill: stem – qual/ mood imperfect) גַּם gam (complement; by contraction from an used root meaning to gather; properly assemblage; when used only adverbially also, even, yea, though; often repeated as correlation both … and) שְׁתַּיִם sh@nayim (prime; the first form is the dual of Strong’s H8145; the second form is feminine; two; also as ordinal twofold) אִשָּׁה ‘ishshah (prime; the first form is the feminine of Strong’s H0376 or H0582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman in the same sense as H0582) שָׁאַר sha’ar (prime; a primitive root; properly to swell up, that is, be redundant; causatively make redundant; stem – Niphal / mood – imperfect) שְׁתַּיִם sh@nayim (standard) יֶלֶד yeled (prime; from Strong’s H3205; something born; that is a lad or offspring) מִן min (complement; for Strong’s H4482; properly a part of; hence from or out of in many senses used prepositionally) שְׁתַּיִם sh@nayim (complement) אִישׁ ‘iysh (contracted for Strong’s H0582 or an unused root meaning to be extent; man – when used as an adjunct to a more definite
To me your description looks almost like an implied dative between muwth and sha’ar. Any chance you could eloborate?
I haven’t really spent much time with Ruth so there is a great deal of new material for me. Examining the issue of authorship and authenticity I have discovered many scholars who follow the view of Campbell, Craghan, Eissfeldt, and Murphy who believe the entire work is so much fatansy and fiction based the the existence of plot complications with suspense and a satisfying denouement that holds up to its readers hebrew models of heronies and a hero as it exaults levirate marriage. In essence they believe it to be an ancient work of entertainment. The fact that it is one of the ketubim is ignored, as is the halachic issue of Uriah (the Hittite olim) that was introduced by the prophet Samuel over the issue of David’s adultery with Bathsheba. The book was very likely written under the direction of King David as an act of teshuva and is intended to declare his humble origins. It establishes halachic teachings and precedents regarding foreignors and the prohibitions against oppressing them. Just as Israel came from Egypt, David’s lineage came from Ruth the Moabite and this point is being addressed to teach the halacha for the Court of Gentiles in the temple. I suppose goyim such as these scripture scholars can not fathom what it means to be an Israelite or how critical the book of Ruth was to the first temple and its contribution to the Torah.
Comment first: why pay any attention to such “scripture scholars” as these(?) All sorts of lies are always being said trying to disprove and trivialize the Holy Word of God. Some do it on purpose, just as their father the devil does.
Here’s question 2:
Stephen looked into heaven and saw (Acts 7: 55-56) the Glory of God and Jesus standing . . .
When we get to heaven will we see the Holy Spirit?
Also, please tell me how this scene is described in the original. thank you.
My you certainly know how to ask difficult questions! Why I must pay attention to scripture scholars such as these? Two reasons: First they draw from a single source of authority founded in the second temple. When the Christians escaped the armies of Titus in the siege of Jerusalem they took with them copies of all the temple writings that spoke of Meshiach. Even though many were eventually lost there still remains a core body of teaching and thought evident to this day even though it may have suffered corruption. The second point is based on Halacha: Rabbi Eli Mansour in his “Parashat Korah: Korah’s Mistakes … Korah’s second mistake was in thinking that because we are all sacred we do not need religious leaders. Even great Torah Sages consult with other Sages for guidance and direction. The fact that we are all sacred does not mean we have all the answers we need to live a proper Torah life. We need the guidance of the ‘Moshe and Ahron’ of each generation to help ensure that we conduct ourselves the way we should. “
Not everyone is a Torah scholar and so not everyone need look to strangers and foreigners but only those for whom this task has been appointed.
Now regarding Luke, the physician beloved of Paul:
Acts is unique in the New Testament for being transmitted early on as far back as the early 2nd century in two text types: Egyptian (Alexandrian) and Western (Codex Benzae (D) African Lat version, and Harclean Syr “apparatus”). Scholarship favors the Egyptian as the closest to Luke’s own hand due to the occasional omissions that betray evidence of initentional revision in the Western version, which is 1/10 longer than the Egyptian.
Examining the reference to Acts 7:55-56 requires first understanding Stephen’s speech (7: 2-53) the longest discourse in the book of Acts. The sharp polemical climax of Stephen’s argument draws upon a historical schema developed by deuteronomic historians (cf. O. Steck, U Wilckens). It’s traditional and compositional elements indicate mature Pauline thought as evidenced by the fact that Luke, a gentile author, has received both teaching and instruction in Torah. The use of the Moses-prophet typology coupled with Torah citations that use and evoke contextual reference are all practices common among the Pharisees and scribes. Even the mention of Paul performing a brit milah on Luke to bring him into the temple includes the inference that Paul is his mohel and Luke is his olim.
Stephen’s speech may be divided into versus 2-8 (1) Adonai’s faithfulness to Avraham; versus 9-16 (2) Adonai’s faithfulness with Yoseph; versus 17-43 (3) Adonai’s faithfulness with Moshe; versus 44-50 (4) Adonai’s dwelling among the unfaithful Israelites – who due to the golden calf incident at Mt. Sinai were stripped of the priesthood which was given to the Levites after they slew the 6000 gold calf worshippers. From that point on the Tent of the Tabernacle was placed at the center of the camp surrounded by the Levites to keep secularized Israel from being destroyed by Adonai’s presence. Finally versus 50-53 (5) the conclusion: Israel’s perennial resistance to Adonai and His messengers. The historical survey from Avraham’s call to Yoseph and Moshe describe the wickedness of Israel, which climax’s in the building the temple. The undertone in the argument is the idolatrous nature of Israel’s religious leadership which has substituted enuma in the faithfulness of Adonai for a graven image of Torah: The legalistic elements of covenant statehood have strangled the life of Torah creating a dead observance whose purpose is to enrich those who practice it by devouring the inheritance of the people of Israel. As it is written, “they eat my people like bread, never giving thanks” (cf. Romans 1: 19-28. ibid. Psalms 14:4, 50). The theme of inheritance is integral to understanding Paul-Luke. (1) In Halacha there are two forms of Kedushat Yisrael – a general sanctity that is created through our actions and one that is imputed by Adonai which pertains to the offices of prophet, priest, and king for which our acts of obedience testify as witness to Adonai who establishes the office. Here Stephen is declaring a greater Kadash, namely the Avrahamic covenant of blessing which is as superior to Kedushat Yisrael as Adonai Himself is superior to all creation. The promised blessing is the life and sonship (covenant presence) of Adonai dwelling with in His people. The intended reference is Adonai separating from secularized Israel those of His own (cf. Gen 3: 15) inferring that the leaders of Israel have become children of Nahash following the empty form of the covenant but not its likeness to Adonai (i.e. broken vessels). Stephen is condemning Israel’s leadership by inferring that they practice observance out of scrupulosity and selfish interest rather than enuma; hence his condemnation and withering peroration in versus’ 51-53. The martyrdom of Stephen is a parallelism with Jesus’ Sanhedrin trial (versus 55, 56, 58b) and dying words (versus 59-60) and the supernumerary presence of Saul-Paul. The vision of gazing into the heavens and seeing the Glory of Adonai is divine testimony of the truth of Stephan’s words. Stephan’s death is both fearless and holy despite the painful and slow nature of stoning. In this context the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the Avrahamic blessing which Christians enjoy both on earth and in heaven. Just as Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven as a mustard seed that grows into a tree, so the Holy Spirit perfects and fills our being as the presence of Adonai’s own worship of Himself until we reach perfection where the temple curtain is torn with in our beings (our separation from Adonai) and we behold the living presence of Adonai with in ourselves both here and in the regeneration. Therefore we see Adonai face to face in heaven with our spiritual senses even as we experience His indwelling with in our beings – the double blessing of Avraham.
Thank you. Grace be with you.
Unknowingly you have answered a few other of my “wonder whys” within this thorough answer. I will spend time on this.
–This “picture” in Scripture is/has been to me like a photograph of my loved ones/One.
“divine testimony of the truth of Stephan’s words” — how beautiful! that never occured to me!
Your answer –so beautiful– causes another question to arise — I hope this one is not “out of bounds”, but it is where my mind has arrived — will we then live with Him in the Holy of Holies? Is that where heaven (is)?