Saying Grace and Saving a Plate
I’ve been trudging my way through the book of Ruth in Hebrew, trying to keep my skills alive in the language. While reading this morning, I noticed something that caught my attention. In Ruth 2:18, the narrator reports that after Ruth spent the day gleaning in Boaz’s field, “Her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also brought out and gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied” (ESV).
The food the narrator refers to were the leftovers from the all-you-can-eat, employer- provided lunch that Boaz gave his workers in Ruth 2:14. The conclusion of the meal sounds more like a Thanksgiving dinner than a lunch break: “And she ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over” (ESV).
What caught my eye in Ruth 2:18 was the Hebrew words translated as the phrase “what food she had left over.” In Hebrew, this phrase consists of two words: a relative pronoun and a verb. Specifically, I was interested in the verb, which is yatar in Hebrew. What intrigued me is that this verb was in a form called the Hiphil that normally indicates not just an action that the subject does, but rather an action that the subject causes. For example, we see this form in Deuteronomy 28:11, which says “And the LORD will make you [cause you to] abound in prosperity.” God is not just doing prosperity; he is causing prosperity.
The verb form could affect how we translate the verse. Rather than saying, “what she had left over”, could we instead say “what she kept” or “what she saved”? The nuance is subtle, but important. The first option implies that Ruth simply had food remaining by chance, but the second option implies that she intentionally saved some of her food to share it with Naomi. Are these leftovers here just because Ruth got full, or did she intentionally save a plate for Naomi?
A quick glance at most translations would seem to say that the leftovers were just leftovers, as represented by the ESV of both verses:
Ruth 2:14 ESV: And she ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over.
Ruth 2:18 ESV: She also brought out and gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied.
However, the NET Bible and the NKJV tell a different story:
Ruth 2:14 NKJV: and she ate and was satisfied, and kept some back.
Ruth 2:18 NKJV: So she brought out and gave to her what she had kept back after she had been satisfied.
Ruth 2:14 NET: She ate until she was full and saved the rest.
Ruth 2:18 NET: Then Ruth gave her the roasted grain she had saved from mealtime.
See the difference? The NKJV and the NET imply that Ruth intentionally caused some of her lunch to be leftovers so that she could share it with Naomi. Two scholars come to similar conclusions. James McKeown, in his Ruth commentary, says on page 60, “In the story of Ruth the leftover food not only shows that she had more than enough to eat, but also highlights her thoughtfulness since she kept the surplus food in order to give it to Naomi later (Ruth 2:18)”. Additionally, Peter Lao says “Boaz handed her roasted grain, some of which she had kept to pass on to her mother-in-law. Even as she was filling her stomach, she was thinking of her mother-in-law,” The Book of Ruth, 196.
All that being said, I don’t want to read too much into just the form of the verb. Over-reading is when you interpret and analyze something more excessively than intended. That’s one of the dangers (and might I say, temptations!) that comes with knowing a little bit about Hebrew and not being an expert in it. Did the author of the book really intend us to understand that Ruth intentionally caused left overs to share with Naomi?
To answer this question, we need to look at the different ways the verb yatar is used, and specifically in the Hiphil (causative) form. According to The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, the verb yatar in the Hiphil form can indeed simply mean “to have more than enough.” We see this in 2 Kings 4:43 and 2 Chronicles 31:10:
2 Kings 4:43-44: “Thus says the LORD, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’” So he set it before them. And they ate and had some left, according to the word of the LORD.”
2 Chronicles 31:10: “We have eaten and had enough and have plenty left, for the LORD has blessed his people, so that we have this large amount left.”
2 Chronicles 31:10 actually uses the same three verbs used in Ruth 2:14 translated here as “eaten, had enough, and have plenty left” – and the last verb is indeed yatar in the Hiphil form. So perhaps the majority of the translations are right, and we don’t want to read too much into Ruth’s leftovers. I’m not going to take a firm stance either way, although I lean towards the idea that Ruth put Naomi’s name on a plate.
What theological concepts does this conversation suggest?
God’s Abundant Provision Mediated Through Boaz
One sure conclusion we can draw from this text is that God is providing for Ruth and Naomi through Boaz. Peter Lau points out that these three verbs (to eat, to be full, and to have left-overs) are often used of abundance in contexts of divine generosity (Deut. 6:11, 8:10, Joel 2:26, Psalm 22:27, 2 Kings 4:43-44, 2 Chronicles 31:10). Boaz previously prayed that God would repay Ruth for her devotion to her mother-in-law (Ruth 2:12). Thus, God is actually the one providing for Ruth through Boaz. God is the one who feeds, satisfies, and provides left overs.
Ruth’s Leftovers as a Fruit of Wisdom
If the author did want us to think that Ruth intentionally “kept back” and “saved” the food as leftovers, he may want us to associate her with temperance and foresight. In other words, she rationed the meal out. She did meal planning! She wasn’t the kind of person to eat an entire bag of potato chips in one sitting! Instead, she was self controlled enough to enjoy a meal but not overindulge. (If I am over-reading the text, it’s here!)
One aspect that strengthens this reading is Ruth’s description as a “worthy woman” in Ruth 3:11, the same Hebrew phrase used in Proverbs 31:10 describing the “Proverbs 31 Woman.” The author of Ruth certainly wants us to associate Ruth with Proverbs, and all of the good virtues that come from living a life of wisdom. But the lexical parallel is not the only connection between these two women. In our typical canonical arrangement, the book of Ruth follows the book of Judges. But in the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ruth follows the book of Proverbs! So when one finishes the poem in Proverbs 31 about the excellent woman, who does she read about when she turns the page? The other excellent woman, Ruth! Ruth’s associations with the wise lady of Proverbs 31 make me think that we could read Ruth’s “saving a plate” alongside the Proverbs 31 woman, who thinks ahead and provides for others.
Ruth’s Care For Other as an Extension of God’s Care
Whether or not Ruth intended to save left overs, the fact that she gives it to Naomi is just one aspect of her continuous care and devotion to her mother-in-law. When Naomi decides to return to Israel, Ruth stays and continues on the journey. When Ruth returned to Naomi after her long day gleaning in the fields, Naomi surely did not expect her to bring home supper. But like the Proverbs 31 woman, Ruth “provides food for her household” (Proverbs 31:15).
Conclusion
Every time we take a bite, we can remember that it was God who provided the food. In the movie Shenandoah, Jimmy Stewart plays a disgruntled farmer. While saying grace over the supper table, he says “Lord, we cleared this land, we plowed it, sowed it, and harvested it. We cooked the harvest. We wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t be eatin’, if we hadn’t done it all ourselves. We worked dog-boned hard for every crumb and morsel, but we thank you just the same anyway, Lord, for the food we’re about to eat. Amen.”
Stewart’s character didn’t realize that all of his food actually came from God, much like Ruth’s provision comes through Boaz but ultimately from the Lord. It all comes from Him. And when we share those things with others through caring service, we can be used to bless others. So the next time you enjoy a meal, thank God for it, enjoy it, and save a plate for your neighbor!