2005 April-June: Issue no.2; PAGE 3

Issue no. 2: 2005 2^nd Quarter; article overview:

Page 1:A critical examination of the destination, authorship and dating of the epistle to the Hebrews;
Page 2:Abraham’s sacrifice:Isaac or Ishmael?;
Page 3:The Law of Kindness;
Page 4:The Day of Atonement -Part one;
Page 5:The Spirit-Part one;
Page 6:A critical review of "Heaven on Earth"
Page 7:Missiology: "To the Jew first"
For the PDF version of this article click here

The law of kindness

The law of kindness: a paradigm for faithful Jewish - Gentile relations in the “Hope of Israel.”

“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and the law of kindness is on her tongue.”

(Prov.31: 26)

What is the “law of kindness”?

The “law of kindness” is an idiomatic expression found in Proverbs 31 and is used to describe the process of redemption initiated by the kinsman redeemer or “gō’ēl.”  This article will present the following points:

(1) The terminology of Redemption

(2) Levirate marriage pre-dates the Sinai covenant

(3) The “law of kindness” was initiated by faithful women.

(4) The “law of kindness” in action; Proverbs 31 and Ruth.

(5) The “law of kindness”: the basis for true relationships between Jews and Gentiles.

The terminology of Redemption

The Hebrew gō’ēl and ge’ullâ from the root g’l - to redeem or deliver, represents technical legal terminology of Israelite family law – the root only occurs in the Hebrew (has no correspondence in other ANE languages) so it’s meaning must be inferred entirely from that usage. [1] Unlike g’l, pdh is a common root shared by all Semitic languages; pādâh          is often used of redeeming through payment of a ransom. However, pdh has a broader meaning than its frequent parallel g’l and lacks the latter roots specifically legal roots. N.T. terms for redemption no longer reflect the OT distinction between pdh and g’l.   The NT bypasses lytroomai, their primary equivalent in the LXX, in favour of rhyomai [2] a word rarely used in LXX for g’l and pdh, and sōzō, [3] which LXX never uses for g’l and rarely (2x) for pdh. [4]

Levirate marriage pre-dates the Sinai covenant

Levirate marriage [5] was already a custom and probably a legally binding institution before the Mosaic Law, into which it was incorporated (Deut.25:5-10). Anthropological studies show that a majority of social groups practice levirate marriage (Murdock, 441), and ANE law codes attest to analogous customs among Israel’s neighbours (MAL nos. 30, 33, 43; cf. ANET, 190-91; Hittite HL § 193; cf. ANET, 196; see also Ugar. RS 16.144; Leggett, 9-27). [6]

The “law of kindness” was initiated by faithful women

The first occurrence of the “law of kindness” is the story of Tamar in Genesis 38. In this unusual narrative the law of redemption is perhaps honoured more in the breach than in practice. Tamar had to resort to duplicity in order to redeem her husband’s inheritance, for her father-in-law Judah had neglected his patriarchal duty. Although Genesis 38 is often regarded as an independent literary unit or interpolation, Robert Alter disagrees, and points out the thematic connection with the rest of Genesis:

“The entire book of Genesis is about the reversal of the iron law of primogeniture, about the election through some devious twist of destiny of a younger son to carry on the line…..an inscrutable, unpredictable principle of election other than the “natural” one works itself out.” [7]

Our next encounter with the “law of kindness” is the story of Ruth where, once again, the process is initiated by a woman (Naomi by her proxy Ruth). The transaction between Boaz and Ruth is also not strictly a levirate marriage, for Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s deceased husband.

The unorthodox nature of the unions in Genesis 38 and with Ruth (a Moabite woman) reinforce the essential historicity of the accounts, as such practices would not have been contemplated in post-exilic Israel, at the very least events would have been related with an apology or explanation. The absence of disapprobation is an indication that it was committed to writing before the exile, although the final form has undergone redaction.

The “law of kindness” in action; Proverbs 31 and Ruth

In this section we will examine the connection between Proverbs 31 and the book of Ruth, it will be necessary to attempt a thorough exegesis before progressing to our conclusion. Proverbs 31 commences with Instructions of a mother to her son:

“The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy (oracle) that his mother taught him. What, my son? And what, the son of my womb? And what, the son of my vows? Give not thy strength unto women, Nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.”  (vv. 1-3)

The Hebrew form stresses that she repeatedly taught her son these instructions. Who then was king Lemuel? According to the Talmud, Lemuel is one of six aliases for Solomon. If this is correct then we can identify the mother as Bathsheba. It is certain that Solomon was also known under a different birth name – Jedidiah [8]

Proverbs 31 is probably a late pseudonymous addition to the collection; it is obvious that the author is drawing a contrast between Bathsheba (the adulterous woman) and Ruth (the virtuous woman).  Bathsheba lost the child of her adulterous union and it would be natural for her to seek a blessing from God on her second child. [9] Consider the following comparison:

It follows then, that the “mother” (Bathsheba) has very good reasons to warn “her son” (Solomon) against the perils of drink and giving his “strength unto women.”  Whether or not Bathsheba swore a vow to raise him as a Nazarite (in imitation of the high priest) is probably pure speculation on the part of the author of Proverbs 31; it is however curious that Solomon functioned as a priest (a Melchizedek priest?) at the inauguration of the Temple (1 Kgs. 8). He certainly did not heed the warning about giving his “strength to women!!” (1 Kgs.11:1)

Verses 9 -31 of Proverbs 31 are all modelled on the example of the gentile woman Ruth, who in contrast with the Bathsheba incident “pleaded the cause of the poor and needy” (31:9)

“And Boaz answered and said unto her, It hath fully been showed me, all that thou hast done (i.e., all your kindness) unto thy mother in law since the death of thy husband….” (Ruth 2:11)

Who can find a virtuous woman?  For her price is far above rubies. (31:10)

Usually the Hebrew chayil (virtuous) is translated as strength or valour in connection with personal bravery, for example, during warfare. It is however translated as virtuous [10] in four passages in the AV (Ruth 3:11; Prov.12:4; 31:10, 29)

“For all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman” (Ruth 3:11)

In these passages “virtuous” is a comment on the moral strength of character and integrity of the woman involved.

The heart of her husband doth trust in her, so that he shall have no lack of gain (31:11)

In the story of Ruth the next-of-kin, who was willing to redeem the land refused to continue when it became apparent that he had to marry Ruth and raise children to her in order to perpetuate the family name of Elimelech (through his deceased son Mahlon). This meant that he was required to support Naomi and therefore his own children would suffer economic loss:

“I cannot redeem it for myself lest I mar mine own inheritance” (Ruth 4:6).  [11]

However, Boaz did not have such qualms, he trusted his wife Ruth; moreover he had no other children and the offspring of their union would be both the descendant of Boaz (by a wife that he married for love) and the heir of Elimelech.

She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life (31:12)

“And he (Boaz) said, Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter, for thou has showed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followest not young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman” (Ruth 3:10)

She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar (31:13-14)

These verses paint a picture of industriousness, a woman who was not willing to stand by and watch her adopted family suffer. It is notable that both the Tabernacle and the Temple(s) were all constructed using gentile wealth – “the wealth of the Gentiles shall come unto thee” (Isa.60: 5) – this is a gift from the “willing hearted” (cf. Ex.25:1-2; 35:5) [she worketh willingly]. Ruth also brought her “food from afar”:

“So she gleaned in the field until even…..and she took it up and went into the city…..and gave to her (Naomi) until she was sufficed” (Ruth 2:17-18)

She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household; and a portion to her maidens (31:15)

Ruth went to meet Boaz at night, during the harvest festival; he sent her back to her mother-in-law while it was still dark [12] - but she did not return empty handed:

“Go not empty to thy mother in law” (Ruth 3: 17)

She returned with six measures of barley – enough to see Naomi through until the Sabbath rest. (The saying in Mtt.24: 25 may be based on Proverbs – eating and drinking with the drunken is abuse of power [cf. David?] contrasted with the servant who gives them meat in due season [cf. Ruth]).

She considereth a field and, buyeth (taketh) it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard (31: 16)

The field could only be redeemed by Boaz and this was only possible through clever manoeuvring by Ruth with the advice of Naomi. She advised Ruth to act in a certain way, this put “Mr next-of-kin” (who was a closer relation than Boaz) in an intolerable position (because he was only willing to purchase the field – he was not willing to marry a “gôy”). This left Boaz open to redeem the field on Naomi’s behalf by taking Ruth as his bride.

“Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day” (Ruth 3: 18).

(In contrast, the anti-type Jezebel acquired a field by plotting against the rightful owner and having him murdered)

She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms (31:17).

This is a play on the name of Boaz – which probably comes from Ba’al ’ōz LORD OF STRENGTH and is also one of the names of the two Temple pillars, whose names combine to form the phrase “Yah Establishes in Strength.” A similar word-play is to be found in 31:25. Ruth’s pillar of strength and her honour are all derivative from her beloved husband.

Proverbs 31: 17-19

A general description of her industry and care for her household

She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy (31:20)

We have already observed that this is an apt description of Ruth who left everything in order to support her destitute mother-in-law. (Ruth 2:11)

Proverbs 31: 21-22

Another description of her care for her household

Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land (31:23)

Boaz became “famous” for his act of redemption and took his rightful place in the “gates” as one of the city elders and judges of Israel:

“And the women said to Naomi, Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a near kinsman, and let his name (Boaz) be famous in Israel” (Ruth 4:14)

Moreover, Boaz became the progenitor of the royal line of Judah thus ensuring that his name would continue as a memorial alongside his illustrious descendants.

Proverbs 31: 24-25

Another description of her unceasing industriousness together with a word-play on the name of Boaz, note particularly the following:

…and she shall rejoice (laugheth) in time to come

This refers to Naomi the “bitter one” (Ruth 1:21) who was “afflicted by the Almighty” but now has reason to laugh with joy again (Ruth 4:14, 17).

She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and the law of kindness is on her tongue (31: 26)

The “law of kindness” is the law of redemption – God provides a way to raise seed to the dead by providing a redeemer, the “kindness” of Ruth is more than rewarded by the “kindness” of Yahweh:

“Blessed be the Lord who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead.” (Ruth 2:20)

We complete the exegesis with a wonderful soliloquy of praise to Ruth:

Her children rise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. (31:28-31)

“And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, we are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephrathah and be famous in Beth-lehem. And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman” (Ruth 4:11-12).

The mention of Tamar in this soliloquy of praise to Ruth is not coincidental, for both faithful women applied the “law of kindness” in an unorthodox way in order to redeem their dead husband’s inheritance, and raise “seed to the dead.”  As a consequence of their faith they are both the progenitors of the royal line of Judah and ultimately of the messiah. [13]

The “law of kindness”: the basis for true relationships

The basis for true relationships between faithful Jews and faithful Gentiles is the “law of kindness.”  Ruth swore allegiance to Naomi and her people in one of the most moving and powerful declarations in scripture:

“And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:  Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me” (Ruth 1:16, 17).

This is a not just a statement of personal loyalty to Naomi but also a statement of faith in the God of Israel.  It is faith in the “hope” of Israel, a term that is always connected with the expectation of having children, and by extrapolation of bearing the Messiah. Naomi expresses it as follows:

“If I should say, I have hope, if I should have a husband to-night, and should also bear sons; would ye tarry for them till they were grown?” (Ruth 1:12,13a)

Naomi, whose name means “pleasant” went out “full” and returned from her sojourn empty and “bitter” (Ruth 1:20,21), it was only through the intervention of her gentile daughter-in-law with the  gō’ēl, that Naomi’s fortunes were restored. 

Ruth had come to rely on the God of Israel; “under whose wings thou art come to trust [take refuge]” (Ruth 2:12). The “wings of the cherubim” had been spread over Ruth, this was symbolised by the protection and comfort offered by the gō’ēl: “spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid” (Ruth 3:9). It is significant that the book of Ruth is read at the feast of Pentecost, (also called the feast of harvest) traditionally associated with the giving of the Law, 49 days after the presentation of the “wave-sheaf” or first-fruits of the barley harvest on the 16^th of Nisan. [14] Pentecost, on the 50^th day was celebrated by presenting two (leavened) wave loaves – the first-fruits of the wheat harvest.

Naomi had left Bethlehem (meaning the house of bread) because of famine, but at her return she, along with her daughter-in-law, were redeemed by the gō’ēl. The harvest of Boaz presented two loves of bread to Yahweh – two faithful women – a Jew and a Gentile who shared the same hope and were redeemed by the same man. It was at Pentecost that the Spirit was poured out on first century Jewish Christians (Acts 2: 1-4), anticipating the outpouring on Gentile Christians (Acts 12:45); pre-figuring the last days Spirit testimony of the two witnesses (Rev.11:3). Pentecost does indeed celebrate the giving of a Law - it is however not a Law written on two tablets of stone, but a Law written by the Spirit on the hearts of two women  – it is the “Law of kindness.” 

Similar to Ruth, the gentiles also have a role to play in reconciling the Jews to their God.  The apostle Paul warns the gentiles not to be “high-minded” or arrogant but to fear, “for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed that he also spare not thee” (Rom.11:21). How then to gather up both Jew and Gentile into the “hope of Israel”?  Do we follow the route of militant “Christian Zionism”: uncritically supporting nationalist ideals, hoping for, if not actively engineering an apocalyptic crisis?  Or the route of evangelical Christianity: Jews for Jesus, for example?  Are the Jews helped by adopting centuries of false Christian dogma?  How can any Jew worship a Trinitarian God? No. It is time for faithful Jews and Gentiles to cast off every burden – to return to Biblical teachings concerning the Messiah – the gō’ēl Jesus Christ. For we were all dead in Adam until seed was raised to the dead through our kinsman redeemer Jesus Christ; our inheritance is wrapped up in him and all the promises to the patriarchs are, Yea and Amen in him.

NOTES

[1] NIDOTTE, vol. 1, page 789-794 article by R. L. Hubbard, Jr.

[2] Rhyomai: to restore, deliver, rescue Strongs: 4506

[3] Sōzō: to save, deliver, protect: Strongs: 4982

[4] NIDOTTE vol.3 page 578-581 article by R. L. Hubbard, Jr.

[5] Levirate marriage, from the Latin levir, “brother-in-law” the Hebrew term is yābam, “to perform the duty of a brother in law”

[6] NIDOTTE vol.4 page 903 article by F.R. Ames.

[7] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, (Basic Books, 1981), page 6.

[8] 2 Sam.12:24-25, Jedidiah means “Beloved of Yah” (cf. “beloved” in Ps.127:2)

[9] Lemuel means, “Belonging to God” or “Dedicated to God” this suggests that the name is related to the expression “son of my vows.”  It seems that the mother had dedicated her son to God. Usually this meant a Nazerite vow (c.f. 1 Sam.1:11) this may explain her warning against “wine and strong drink” (vv.4).

[10] For a full discussion by R. Wakely see: NIDOTTE vol.2 page116-126

[11] Mr next-of-kin could have purchased the land from Naomi in the hope that Ruth’s firstborn was a daughter (or that she was barren?). In the event of male offspring the land would be held in trust by Naomi until the child was of age. It is possible that impoverishment would force Naomi to re-sell the land in the meantime, obliging Mr next-of-kin to repurchase the land (Jer. 32) expending more of his resources and virtually acting as a financial guarantor until the birth of a son. Even after the purchase of the land it would return into Naomi’s trust in the Jubilee year (Lev.25) allowing her to re-sell it to other clansmen or possibly to resident aliens (in order to alleviate her poverty) thereby necessitating redemption once again, until there was an heir apparent.

 [12] The ploy arranged by Boaz could only work if their rendezvous at night went unnoticed by the villagers, for, no matter how innocent their assignation appeared, it would cause a scandal, especially if word had leaked out to Mr next-of-kin. Mr next-of-kin would obviously have said that he had been perfectly prepared to marry Ruth (as well as redeem Naomi’s land) until he had heard that she was having secret trysts in the fields at night with Boaz!! He may even have been granted the right to purchase the land without the necessity to marry Ruth.

[13] In the case of Tamar this can be observed in the “blessing” concerning “Shiloh” pronounced on Judah in Genesis 49:8. The Encyclopaedia Biblica [E.B. vol. III p.3015] remarks the best solution is to read Shiloh for Shalem and compares the Hebrew MT of Jer.41:5 (Shilo) with the Greek (Vaticanus) LXX (Salhm) transliterated as Salem. The confusion seems to be caused by the similarity between the Hebrew (h), (m) and (ch) which are easily mistaken- Shalem ;  Shelach (send);  Shelah(Gen.38:8);   and Shiloh ; .  The E.B. [vol. IV p.4447] remarks that the name Shelah (Judah’s youngest son) closely resembles Shiloh (cf. Neh3:15 the erroneous transliteration Siloah in the A.V. rendered Shiloah in the R.V. and Shelah in the R.V. mg.) Without the Hebrew pointing (a late invention) the words are almost identical. This probably explains why the waters of Shiloah (Isa.8:6) becomes Siloam in the LXX (and Shelah becomes Selom in Gen.38:8 LXX). Grotius held the view that John 9:7 identified Siloam with Shiloh [E.B., vol., IV, page 4472]. The prophecy concerning Judah (Gen.49:10) is instructive in this light: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver (R.V. the ruler’s staff) from between his feet, Until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people (R.V. peoples) be.”  The R.V., mg also gives, “Till he come to Shiloh”  The word Shiloh is seen not as a proper name, nor as a simple word, but as a compound, composed of the relative pronoun sh^e  , the preposition l^e and the pronominal suffix of the 3 d person masc., Ōh. This phrase has been interpreted as meaning “that which is his”, “whose it is”, or “his own one.” The second of these three meanings would happily correspond to Ezek.21:27, but the omission of the subject is a serious syntactic difficulty; and the first regarded as objective, “he shall come to that which is his,” is grammatically difficult, for a relative clause with indefinite antecedent used as an accusative is preceded by a preposition or the sign of the accusative. This conception of the word as a phrase is old, having been entertained by the ancient versions, namely, LXX, Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, Syriac, and Jerome (see The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible p.557). The reading of Shelah for Shiloh is attested in many MT MSS and some Samaritan MSS (Good, 430) but according to NIDOTTE (vol. 4 p.1223) it is notable only for its eccentricity. However, this disregards the strength of the case that can be made from the contextual setting. The blessing on Judah must be seen against the background of Genesis 38 – the refusal of Judah to give his youngest son Shelah to Tamar, and the subsequent loss of the symbols of rulership; the signet, bracelets and staff (38:25 compare the sceptre departing 49:10) and the lawgiver (shâchath) from between the feet (49:10), which plays on the spilling (châqaq) of seed on the ground (38:9).  The context is the younger brother “raising seed”; (redeeming) the dead (elder) brothers estate. The sense of the phrase is clearly Messianic, and Shiloh is probably a misreading of Shelah or Shelach, carrying the sense- “Until the (requested) one comes”, which in the N.T. becomes Siloam. It is notable that the late 16^th century commentary 4QPBless, apparently understands “Shiloh” as “Until the Messiah of Righteousness, the shoot of David comes” (NIDOTTE vol.4 p.1222). If the above is correct then “Melchizedek King of Salem” may have been a descriptive phrase, with the original form corrupted from Shelach [sh^e l^e Shelach] to Shalem. The righteous King that is sent – or the King of righteousness (cf.Ps.4:1) that is sent [by God]. Compare the association of peace (shâlôm) petition (she’êla) and asked (shâ’al) in 1 Sam.1:17 and also Mal.3:1; “Behold, I will send (shâlâch) my messenger (mâlâk cf. melek).

[14] Alfred Edersheim: The Temple, Its ministry & Services as they were at the time of Jesus Christ (A. Wheaton & Co. Ltd., Exeter, 1959) page 249-267.