When the Story Isn’t the Story
Then he said to the closest relative, “Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. Ruth 4:3 NASB
Who has come back – Some time ago we looked at Ruth 1:22 (December 5, 2016). We discovered that the grammar is quite odd, adding a definite article in front of a verb. The translation suggests that Ruth is returning to Bethlehem with Naomi, but the grammar says something else. It says that Naomi is accompanied by “the returned.” The subsequent phrase added more information. Verse 1:22 used an incorrect pronoun, placing a masculine pronoun where the text required a feminine pronoun. We suddenly realized that the grammar was telling us a different story. Naomi considered Ruth an “it,” not a person, while the narrator pushed us to see that the story is not about Ruth but rather about the action of returning. We thought we had figured it out.
Now we come to the end of the story, or so we think. Once again we encounter the strange combination of a definite article with a verb, only this time the sentence is about Naomi, not Ruth. We are thrown off kilter. Without warning, we recognize that we have been reading a story without knowing what the story is about. We thought it was about Ruth, the Moabite who makes a covenant commitment to her mother-in-law, and whose demonstration of hesed overcomes generations of ethnic separation. We thought the story was about a woman whose exemplary sacrifice confronts us with our own bigotry. We thought the story was a “love conquers all” novelette. And now we realize we were wrong. Like other carefully crafted Hebrew stories, when we get to the end we suddenly realize that we have to read it all over again because we didn’t read the spaces between the lines. We discover that God’s hand, which is virtually absent in the text, is found in the spaces between the words, and we missed it because we were reading the words but not the story.
This grammatical oddity (hash-shavah) at the end of the story forces us to recall the same grammatical oddity at the beginning of the story, and when we do so, we see that the story is really about “the returned,” not about the characters in the plot or the circumstances of their lives. In other words, Ruth is a story about what returns, and what returns is Ruth to her destiny, Naomi to her God, Bethlehem to civility, Israel to social order and the creation to its Creator. Ruth prepares the way for the people of Israel, fallen from grace through the period of the Judges, to embrace the once and future king, to be ready for the monarchy and for the final expression of that monarchy in the reign of the Messiah. Ruth is about “the returned”—men to God and God to men. It is a cosmic story written in the pedestrian plot of two women and a kinsman redeemer.
Now, maybe, we have it figured out. We will see.
Topical Index: hash-shavah, the returned, shuv, Ruth 1:22, Ruth 4:3
T’shuva… return… repent… Naomi and Ruth… both Israelites and people from the Nations… the returned… trough the kinsman… trough the Redeemer… to God
Same old message from God through the Torah… through all His prophets… through His Son…
Very interesting…
Judges… In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.
Ruth… as Skip says, Ruth returns to her destiny, Naomi to her God, Bethlehem to civility, Israel to social order and the creation to its Creator
1 Samuel 1… King David… wait… first King Saul then King David
The last days…
In those days, everyone will do as they see fit…
We will be called to return to our destiny…
Then King Messiah… wait… first the Anti-Messiah then King Messiah…
What a cosmic story as Skip says…
Time and history flying in a spiral way…
“That verse (1:27) used an incorrect pronoun…”
Sorry, Skip, but where is that verse, please?
Ruth 1:27 which I believe I wrote about some time ago
Yes, I did look up your previous writing. It’s just that there isn’t a Ruth 1:27.
Sorry, I think it is Ruth 1:19 and Ruth 1:22. I’ll check later, but I am pretty sure I wrote about the unusually pronouns in a prior TW
This story is eerily similar to the myth, Iron John, which, incidentally, is the only myth I have found (outside of the Bible, of course) that has all the elements of a correct psychic reality doing ‘right’. In other words, a story about what a healthy psyche is supposed to look like. The story of Iron John (in some cultures it is also called Red John), also, is about a ‘return’ to function, and what that looks like.
I don’t know much about myth, but the story of Ruth is another such picture of what a correct response to the conditions of the human on this planet should look like. I think I may be learning that people use myth to teach about psychic conditions; in other words, people have traditionally used myth to teach how to recognize psychic reality and how to achieve psychic health. In this sense, the inner cosmic relative order or disorder is represented by the elements of the exterior world. Thus, I think I have may can see (need to understand much more!) that a ‘normal’ psyche consists of a proper story, just as our exterior reality does. In myth, we find parents, children who need to mature, kingdoms (sovereignty) and all kinds of imbalance that needs to be corrected (such as unable or missing parents, which would represent the protective and authoritative actions of the psyche), kings who rule improperly or are not ruling at all (problems with the functioning of the will), children who are lost or cannot grow up (emotional immaturity), people who are enchanted monsters until they learn how to love (what we call ‘trust issues’), etc.) These are NOT children’s tales (sorry, Hans Christian Anderson). Instead, some researchers now suspect that they are ancient initiation rituals (that should NOT be taught to prepubescent children, by the way), that were designed originally to teach emotionally emerging adults (initiation). The story of Ruth smacks of one of these coming-of-age ritual myths The word “myth” does not necessarily mean ‘is not true’. (Robert, I am still reading The Great Code, by Northrop Frye. Thank you!). Every once in a while we recognize a story in the outer world that corresponds to the cosmic story as well as the interior landscape of our individual stories. I am really excited to see that Ruth is one of these! Wow!
I can see that I can use this story to lay over not only my own journey back to the Promised Land, but can also see the story of what our collective journey looks like back to cosmic order. And this story, we can see, is plugged into reality: the characters really lived! Now I need to go and look at my own life. I bet I am going to find the story of Ruth in that, too! I am super excited! It really is all about teshuva!
QUESTIONS – Does the correct translation of the wording imply “conversion”, as well as teshuvah? And, if so, what are some of the differences in the meanings of these two words, if any? Also, what then are the implications of this within this story, our own story, and the other stories within this cosmic story ? I’ve never studied the differences, myself, and don’t recall anyone ever explaining a difference between “conversion” and “repentance”, though I have always, somewhat, wondered.
Wow simply amazed again…
Skip, again you’re able to point out things ( because of your knowledge) that we would otherwise miss. Thank you!