Skip to main content

Bible Blog: The Hidden Words of Scripture

My goal this month is to convince you of one thing: there is a whole world of meaning hidden in the original words of Scripture. By “original words,” I mean the words in the original language—whether it be Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Very often these meanings get lost in translation because translators don’t always translate the word the same way, or there just isn’t a good English version of the word. This is why we have study bibles, commentaries, and Sunday School classes! But I know that all of that may seem daunting if you didn’t take classes on the Bible, or if you don’t have a head for languages. So today, to help motivate you to start looking a little deeper into the Bible, I want to show you one of my favorite language gems—hidden in the book of Ruth.

Ruth is an interesting book. I’m not sure that most Christians are clear on why Ruth is in the Bible. When I was a teenager, I often saw it used as a divine dating guide (which it definitely is not!). I’ve seen it used as a Christian romance story (also not the meaning of the story). Some scholars speculate that it was written as political propaganda, to criticize the policy of forcing mixed marriages to divorce (see Ezra 9-10). But I think the book of Ruth has a very simple, powerful, and important message, and it all comes from one Hebrew word: chesed.

Chesed is perhaps the most important word in the Old Testament. It is translated in many different ways in your Bible: love, kindness, lovingkindness, steadfast love, and mercy, to name a few. The basic meaning is this: chesed is a form of love that is loyal and solid—it never changes. It is love that comes from a covenant, a commitment, instead of just an emotion. It is the love shown between spouses, who love each other because of their vows. It is the love of a parent, who loves their child no matter what. And it is the love that God has for his children.

This form of love God’s defining feature in the Old Testament. It is the reason why God never abandons Israel, no matter how many times they reject him. It is the reason why God’s people can count on him no matter how sinful they become. And it is the kind of love that God asks us to show toward him, and each other—though we constantly fail to do so.

But what does this word have to do with Ruth? Well, I said that is not a romance, though it is a love story. But it’s not a love story between Ruth and Boaz. It’s a chesed story between Ruth and Naomi. Remember that powerful moment when Naomi tells Ruth, her foreign, widowed daughter-in-law, to go back to her home and look for another husband. What does Ruth say?
“Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (Ruth 1:16-17, ESV)
This statement by Ruth is pure chesed. She is being loyal to Naomi no matter what, no matter how much it costs her. But there is another act of chesed that we often miss, and it is the entire point of the story. In chapter 3, when Ruth proposes marriage to Boaz, he replies,
“May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman.” (Ruth 3:10, ESV)
The word “kindness” in this passage is chesed. Now, to what act of kindness is Boaz referring? Is he saying that Ruth is showing chesed to Boaz by not going after younger men? No, he isn’t, because Boaz claims this is her second act of chesed. The act of chesed Boaz is referring to is from Ruth, for Naomi. See, Ruth did not propose marriage to Boaz because she was in love with him, or because he could take care of her, or even because he was a good guy. She married him because he was a relative of Naomi. See, if Ruth married any other men—if she married for love or her own security—Naomi would be on her own. But if she married into Naomi’s family, then her new husband would be obligated by law to take care of Naomi as well. Ruth married Boaz, not because she loved Boaz, but because she loved Naomi. 

So why is this story in the Bible? Well, to me it becomes pretty obvious when you think about chesed. To the world’s eyes, Ruth was the lowest of the low: not just a woman, but a foreign, widowed woman. She was as unimportant as she could be, by the world’s standards. And yet, in her everyday actions, in dealing with the problems in her family, she displayed God’s chesed in a dazzling way. She reflected the image of God. She did what each of us was designed to do. We were not all made for great battles or scientific discoveries, for martyrdom or foreign missions, or whatever we might think of as “important work.” But we are all made for the most important work we have—to reflect God’s character into the world. Ruth teaches us that the “lowest” person, when they show God’s love, becomes great—worthy of their own book in the Bible! Ruth is in the Bible to inspire each of us to be like her. Amen and amen!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Massacre of the Innocents [By W.H. Auden]

[From For the Time Being,  by W.H. Auden] HEROD One needn’t be much of a psychologist to realize that if this rumor is not stamped out now, in a few years it is capable of diseasing the whole Empire, and one doesn’t have to be a prophet to predict the consequences if it should. Reason will be replaced by Revelation. Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, and the same for all, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions—feelings in the solar plexus induced by undernourishment, angelic images generated by fevers or drugs, dream warnings inspired by the sound of falling water. Whole cosmologies will be created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private languages, the daubs of school children ranked above the great masterpieces. Idealism will be replaced by Materialism. Priapus will only have to move to a good address and call himself Eros

Works of Love XVIII: “Love for the Dead”

[From Part II, Chapter IX: “ The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead ”] “Weep less bitterly for the dead, for he is at rest.” Sirach 22:11 (NRSV) [1] With chapter 9 of part 2, Works of Love is beginning to come to a close. With entry 17, this blog series is also nearing its end. As Kierkegaard has given us a detailed view of what Christian love is supposed to look like, now he gives us a way to test the purity of our own love: look at the way you love those who have died. [2] We are to love everyone, and loving means remembering, and so we are to love the dead. But loving those who have died is a special circumstance, and it shows us what kind of love we are showing. If we reflect on the way we love the dead, we can see whether we are showing truly Christian love. Kierkegaard identifies three ways that love for the dead is unique. First, he says that showing love for the dead is “a work of the most unselfish love.” He writes, “If one wants to make sure that love is

Choruses from the Rock (VI), By T.S. Eliot

[I know that I promised blog entries that I haven't delivered yet. I've got plenty of ideas in my head, it's just a matter of finding the time and the motivation at the same time. Anyway, I expect that I'll be ready to write relatively soon, but until then I thought I would tide you over with a section from T.S. Eliot's excellent poem, Choruses from "The Rock". Enjoy!] It is hard for those who have never known persecution, And who have never known a Christian, To believe these tales of Christian persecution. It is hard for those who live near a Bank To doubt the security of their money. It is hard for those who live near a Police Station To believe in the triumph of violence. Do you think that the Faith has conquered the World And that lions no longer need keepers? Do you need to be told that whatever has been, can still be? Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments As you boast of in the way of polite society Will hardly surv