Ruth as a Superior Woman of ‭ליח‬? A Comparison between Ruth and the ‘Capable’ Woman in Proverbs 31.10–31

1. Introduction

The alphabetical acrostic poem in Prov. 31.10–31 is devoted to a female character called ‭ליח תשא‬ (Prov. 31.10). The phrase appears only three times in the Old Testament. Significantly, other than the two occurrences in Proverbs (Prov. 12.4 and 31.10), the only other occurrence in the Old Testament is in Ruth 3.11, where the epithet is accorded to Ruth. Coupled with the fact that in the Hebrew Bible (MT) Ruth comes right after Proverbs 31, the use of the expression in Ruth has led some scholars to see a connection between the woman in Proverbs 31 and Ruth. E.F. Campbell, for instance, argues ‘we must consider the possibility that Ruth follows Proverbs because of a link in their subject matter, specifically that Proverbs concludes with an acrostic poem celebrating a “worthy woman”, in Hebrew ʾēšet ḥayil’. ¹ Whether or not the canonical order is due to the fact that both books speak of ‭ליח תשא‬ is a matter of debate, ² yet the scholarly attention given to the parallels between the two women should not be ignored. Interestingly, while scholars generally note their similarities, their differences and the implications thereof have not been adequately explored. For this reason, in this article I will not only pay attention to their parallels, but will also highlight their differences. I will argue that while Ruth does not exactly fit the portrayal of the ideal woman in the wisdom book, she turns out to be a better ‭ליח תשא‬.

2. The Meaning(s) of ‭ליח תשא‬

Common to the two women is the epithet ‘the woman of ‭ליח‬’. The Old Testament often describes ‭ליח‬ as the gift of God (e.g. Deut. 33.1; Isa. 61.6; Ezek. 28.4; Prov. 13.22). ³ Thus the fact that it is applied to the women already hints at the importance of their status. Determining the meaning of ‭ליח‬, however, is not easy. Generally, the term refers to ‘physical strength’ or ‘power’ (Eccl. 12.3; Ps. 33.17), or military might (‘warrior’, Pss. 18.32 [33], 39 [40]; 100.3). It may also denote financial power (Job 20.18; Ezek. 28.5). Given its broad semantics, it is understandable that scholars offer different translations of ‭ליח תשא‬. Some translate it by ‘capable wife’; ⁴ others, ‘valiant wife’; ⁵ and some others ‘woman of valor’ ⁶ or ‘woman of strength’; ⁷ yet some others ‘woman of substance’. ⁸ In sum, these translations assume that ‭ליח‬ denotes certain strong (physical or mental or moral or spiritual) qualities of the woman. Ultimately, it is the context which indicates what the qualities are. A close look at the contexts of Prov. 31.10–31 and Ruth will show how similar and at the same time different the qualities of the two women of ‭ליח‬ are.

3. The Similarities between the Two Women

Some scholars, such as MrCreesh, have listed the similarities between the two women in terms of loyalty to family, marriage, resourcefulness and praises from others. ⁹ In my view, however, a more detailed comparison is called for. First, both are women of action. As Szlos points out, ¹⁰ the woman in the wisdom book is a hard worker, as indicated by a series of verbs of action in the poem: ‭למג‬ (‘to accomplish’, Prov. 31.12), ‭שרך‬ (‘to seek’, Prov. 31.13a), ‭השע‬ (‘to make’, Prov. 31.13b) and ‭הפצ‬ (‘to watch over’, Prov. 31.27). Similarly, the plot of Ruth 2 is moved forward by a series of Ruth's actions. ¹¹ For the sake of her family, she is said to go (‭ךלה‬, Ruth 2.3) and come (‭שוב‬, Ruth 2.3) to the fields to glean (‭טקל‬, Ruth 2.3, 7) and labour (‭רמע‬, Ruth 2.7) all morning.

Another similarity is that both women work hard to contribute to the economy of their family. They are involved in ancient domestic economy: one is involved in providing food and clothing for her family members (Prov. 31.11–27), the other provides food for her mother-in-law (Ruth 2.18). The works of the woman in Proverbs 31 deserve praise from the assembly at the city gate (Prov. 31.31). Likewise, Ruth's works are affirmed by the whole town (by calling her ‭ליח תשא‬ Ruth 3.11) and receive praise at the assembly of elders at the city gate (Ruth 4.12).

We should also pay attention to the kindness of the two women. The proverbist's woman not only gives teaching of ‘kindness’ (‭ךסח‬, Prov. 31.26b), but also practices it, as she ‘opens her arms to the poor, reaches out her hands to the needy’ (Prov. 31.20). ¹² A similar attribute is given to Ruth. Kindness (‭ךסח‬) is one of the key themes of the book. ¹³ Of interest is Boaz's mention of Ruth's acts of kindness: ‘This kindness (‭ךסח‬) is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor’ (Ruth 3.10). From Boaz's point of view, Ruth's first act of kindness is her decision not to abandon Naomi (Ruth 1.16–17). ¹⁴ Though here ‭ךסח‬ refers more to conduct ‘in accord to familial duties’ rather than compassion for the wider social context (the poor and needy), ¹⁵ offering comfort and support to a needy widow like Naomi meets the criteria of kindness, ¹⁶ as confirmed by the favourable view of the Bethlehemites in general and Boaz in particular (Ruth 2.11). The second act of kindness is her decision to marry Boaz. As Boaz says, she could marry a young and rich husband, yet she chooses to obey her mother-in-law's advice to marry someone who is old enough to call her ‘daughter’ (Ruth 2.8; 3.10). As some exegetes observe, she does so for the perpetuation of the family line of her husband, ¹⁷ an action which resembles that of the levirate marriage in the Mosaic law. ¹⁸ For Boaz, Ruth's levirate-like remarriage is an act of kindness greater than her earlier kindness in not abandoning Naomi.

Besides kindness, both women are also characterized by superiority. The portrayal of the woman in Proverb 31 is framed by two occurrences of ‭ליח‬ (Prov. 31.10, 29), forming what Lichtenstein considers to be an inclusio ¹⁹ and crowning the portrayal with this prominent attribute. The crowning verse praises the woman: ‘Many daughters (‭תונב‬) do ‭ליח‬, but you surpass them all’. This suggests that many daughters do ‭ליח‬, but she does ‭ליח‬ better than any of them. ²⁰ This notion of surpassing ‭ליח‬ echoes Boaz's remark about Ruth in Ruth 3.10–11, where he calls her ‘daughter’ (‭תב‬) and praises her for her willingness to marry him. As Ruth's earlier kindness in supporting Naomi has earned her the ‭ליח תשא‬ accolade, it follows that the later kindness in marrying Boaz, being a greater kindness in Boaz's view, should make her a greater ‭ליח תשא‬.

More importantly, the two women hold similar attitudes towards Yahweh. The woman in Proverbs 31 is characterized by her fear of Yahweh (‭הוחי תארי‬, Prov. 31.30), an attitude central to the wisdom literature, especially to Proverbs (e.g. Prov. 1.7). ²¹ As the ‘fear of Yahweh’ refers to loyalty or commitment to Yahweh, ²² Ruth definitely exemplifies such a virtue. She wishes to have Yahweh as her God (‘your God my God’, Ruth 1.16), a choice which associates her with the God-fearing wise commended in the wisdom tradition (cf. Prov. 1.29). Furthermore, she seeks refuge under the wings of Yahweh (Ruth 2.12), another description of God-fearing people in the wisdom books (Prov. 10.29). Besides, if diligence and kindness constitute the woman's fear of the Lord (Prov. 31.20, 26), ²³ Ruth's diligence and kindness should also be virtues which reflect the same attitude.

Furthermore, both women are viewed as the mediator of God's blessings. For the redactors of Proverbs, a woman of ‭ליח‬ is a special gift from Yahweh (Prov. 12.4). The overall thrust of Prov. 31.10–31 implies that by virtue of her fear of Yahweh (Prov. 31.30), this woman brings prosperity to the household. As Camp observes, she is the ‘mediator of Yahweh's blessings to the house: it is through her work and her “fear of Yahweh” that shalom prevails’. ²⁴ The same thing can be said of Ruth. It is through her that Naomi receives God's blessings of food (Ruth 3.17), and, more importantly, a male descendant (Ruth 4.17).

4. The Differences between the Two Women

While the similarities of the two women are commonly noted, only a few exegetes have highlighted their differences. For example, Sakenfeld draws attention to the fact that many key traits of the woman of ‭ליח‬ in Ruth are ‘quite apart from the context of marriage, children and wealth presupposed in Proverbs 31’. ²⁵ Here I will draw attention to the most obvious contrast between the two women: their social classes. The woman of ‭ליח‬ in the wisdom book is of the upper class. ²⁶ The poem reads: ‘her purchase price ‭רכמ‬ is more than rubies’ (Prov. 31.10b). Based on her research in Persian-period socio-economy, C.R. Yoder advances the theory that ‘purchase price’ here refers to dowry, indicating that the woman comes from a wealthy family and brings significant wealth to her husband, so much so that her husband lacks no ‘booty’ (‭ללש‬, Prov. 31.11b). ²⁷ She lives in luxury, and some of her daily necessities are imported goods (Prov. 31.13–14). In contrast, the woman of ‭ליח‬ of Ruth is of the lower class, evidenced by her living on gleanings from the fields (Ruth 2.2).

The class factor has a bearing on their socio-economic roles. First, the woman in Proverbs 31 is the mistress of the household, as she owns maidservants or slaves (‭תורענ‬, Prov. 31.15) and supervises them. ²⁸ In contrast, by her own confession, Ruth is not even counted as one of Boaz's maidservants (‭החפש‬, Ruth 2.13). Second, while both female portraits show domestically industrious women, each is involved in different industries. Whereas Ruth engages in agrarian activity only, the woman of Proverbs 31 engages in business/investment (Prov. 31.16a, 18, 24), textile manufacturing (Prov. 31.19), in addition to agrarian work (Prov. 31.16b).

5. Ruth as a Woman of ‭ליח‬

The list of differences noted above is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to show that Ruth does not exactly fit the portrait of the ideal woman in the wisdom book. This does not come as a surprise. As mentioned, Prov. 31.10–31 is an alphabetical acrostic poem, in which each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet begins a verse. For this reason, some have called it the ‘A to Z’ of the ideal wife. ²⁹ Despite the debate over whether or not the woman is a personification of wisdom (cf. Prov. 8–9) or a realistic portrait of actual women, scholars generally agree that she is a composite figure of the ideal woman aspired for within the wisdom tradition. ³⁰ Being a composite exhibit, it is no surprise that no biblical woman possesses every quality listed in the wisdom poem. Thus it is expected that Ruth does not have all the A–Zs of the ideal woman.

This being the case, why is Ruth called a woman of ‭ליח‬? Many scholars assume that the few similarities with the woman in Proverbs 31 qualify her for the title. ³¹ This may be true at the narrative level, for after all the Bethlehemites do think she is a woman of ‭ליח‬ (Ruth 3.11). Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that the proverbial poem describes the woman of ‭ליח‬ as a rarity, as implied by how it begins: ‘Who can find?’ (‭אצמי ימ‬, Prov. 31.10a). ³² The rhetorical question suggests that the poem expects one to meet all the criteria while admitting that it is impossible. If so, a few similarities between Ruth and the woman in Proverbs 31 would not be sufficient to accord the former the epithet. If this is correct, we should raise the question: Does the author accord Ruth the epithet for reasons beyond those similarities?

A closer look at Ruth will show that this may well be so. For this, a more detailed observation on their differences is called for. As we will see, instead of disqualifying her, the differences between her and the woman in Proverbs 31 may well be a stronger reason for calling Ruth a woman of ‭ליח‬. Due to limited space, I will highlight only a few differences which have not been mentioned earlier.

6. When the Woman of ‭ליח‬ Meets the Man of ‭ליח‬

Readers of Proverbs 31 cannot but notice the limited reference to the woman's husband. Perhaps due to the poem's focus on the woman, the husband seems to take a back seat. Even activities normally associated with men (such as business, investing in property and so on) are handled by the woman, leaving the impression that ‘the husband is left with little or nothing to do!’ ³³ In contrast, the book of Ruth not only mentions Boaz's involvement frequently, but also underscores his importance. The narrator ushers him into the story by presenting him as a ‘man of great substance’ (‭ליח רובג שיא‬, Ruth 2.1), that is, ‘a man of ‭ליח רובג‬’. Since the word ‭ליח‬ denotes special qualities (as noted above), this suggests the reader should expect great qualities in the following scenes.

As we read on, in some ways, Boaz displays some characteristics parallel to the woman of ‭ליח‬ in Proverbs 31. This man of ‭ליח‬ is a master who owns land and servants; he is God-fearing and is kind to the needy (such as Ruth and Naomi). The more striking connection is that this man of ‭ליח‬ meets and marries the woman of ‭ליח‬, Ruth. ³⁴ More interestingly, in blessing their marriage, the elders of Bethlehem extend the following wish to Boaz: ‘may you do mightily (‭ליח השעו‬) in Ephrathah’ (Ruth 4.11d). In effect, the elders wish that the man of ‭ליח‬ marry the woman of ‭ליח‬ and ‘do ‭ליח‬’. Incidentally, this wish is in keeping with the quality of the woman of substance in Prov. 31.29: ‘Many daughters do ‭ליח‬, but you surpass them all’. But what do the elders mean by ‘do ‭ליח‬’?

As noted above, ‭ליח‬ has a broad semantic range; thus ‘do ‭ליח‬’ may also carry a number of meanings. Most scholars approach the phrase by trying to match the connotations of ‭ליח‬ with the context. Elsewhere ‘do ‭ליח‬’ often means to do valiantly in war (e.g. Num. 24.18; 1 Sam. 14.48; Pss. 60.14; 118.16). Nevertheless, the war motif does not fit the context of Ruth. As ‭ליח‬ may also refer to wealth, some have also construed the phrase as referring to wealth or prosperity (cf. Deut. 8.17–18). ³⁵ This, however, sounds superfluous as Boaz is already a relatively wealthy man (he owns land and servants). Of interest is C.J. Labuschagne's interpretation. On the basis of the use of ‭ליח‬ in Job 21.7–8; Joel 2.22, and Prov. 31.3, he avers that it refers to procreative power. ³⁶ While his critics may be right that the expression does not refer to power of procreation, ³⁷ upon a closer examination we will see that the phrase is somehow related to procreation, though its significance goes beyond procreation. A closer look at the elders' blessing is in order.

First is the syntax of the blessing. The elders begin with a jussive: ‘May Yahweh make (‭הוהי ןתי‬) the woman … like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel’ (Ruth 4.11c). Evidently, they wish Ruth to play the role of Rachel and Leah, that is, the role of producing descendants and building an important family like Jacob's. This jussive is followed by a conjunctive waw and an imperative, which is the phrase in question: ‘and do ‭ליח‬’ (Ruth 4.11d). Usually, such a syntactical construction indicates purpose or result. ³⁸ If so, the phrase ‘do ‭ליח‬’ expresses the result of the procreation wished for in the preceding remark (i.e. Ruth 4.11c). In effect, the elders say: ‘May Yahweh make the woman play the role of Rachel and Leah which will result in you doing ‭ליח‬’. ³⁹ The question is: What kind of result is meant here? This leads us to the second observation.

Following the remark is another conjunctive waw and imperative: ‘and may you call a name (‭סש־ארקו‬) in Bethlehem’ (Ruth 4.11e). This forms the following parallelism:

Following the general rule of Hebrew parallelism, the latter remark intensifies or clarifies the meaning of the preceding remark. ⁴⁰ Thus ‘do ‭ליח‬’ (Ruth 4.11d) is clarified by ‘may you call a name’. However, the meaning of the latter is problematic. Normally, the Hebrew idiom ‭סש־ארקו‬ is followed by someone's name (‘to call the name of X’, e.g. Gen. 3.20; 4.25; Isa. 65.15). But here the phrase lacks the direct object, leaving the meaning uncertain. Some scholars have proposed to emend it to ‭ךָמְשִׁ ארֶקׇּיִׅוְ‬ ⁴¹ or ‭םשֵׁ ארָקְנִ‬ ⁴² (‘may your name be called/let renown be proclaimed’). However, since they are unattested in any manuscript or version, many reject the readings. ⁴³

It is widely noted that ‘name’ (‭סש‬) is often applied to dynasties or royal lines in the Old Testament. ⁴⁴ However, is this the case here? The subsequent verse may offer some clue.

The jussive in Ruth 4.11 is followed by another jussive in Ruth 4.12: ‘May your house be (‭ךתיב יהיו‬) like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah through the seed which Yahweh will give you by this young woman’, suggesting that the two verses (Ruth 4.11, 12) are parallel. If this is correct, the two verses indicate that the elders wish not only that Ruth will bring about a house like that of Jacob, but more specifically also a house/lineage like that of Perez. As v. 12 follows immediately after the wish that Boaz may gain a ‘name’ in Bethlehem (v. 11), it follows that the house/lineage is what the name refers to. This being the case, one would ask, how is a ‘name’ related to the lineage of Perez? The ending of Ruth is crucial to this question, which leads us to the third consideration.

The book of Ruth ends with the genealogy of King David, an ending generally noted to suggest the message for the implied audience. ⁴⁵ The genealogy begins with the Toledot (‭תוךלותהלאו‬, Ruth 4.18a), the standard formula which anticipates a royal lineage in Genesis, ⁴⁶ which is now applied to King David. Notably, this royal line is associated with Perez (Ruth 4.18). This implies that the wish that Boaz may gain ‘name’ (Ruth 4.11e) will be fulfilled through his association with the royal line, a conclusion in keeping with the widely accepted view that ‭םש‬ is often associated with royal lines. ⁴⁷ This fact is important for the significance of the phrase ‘do ‭ליח‬’. Being syntactically parallel to the wish of a name (Ruth 4.11e), the wish that Boaz may do ‭ליח‬ (Ruth 4.11d) may also be associated with the royal line. This intimates that ‘to do ‭ליח‬’ may refer to the emergence of King David and his royal lineage. In light of what this genealogical connection reveals, it turns out that the elders' blessing is not just an ancient practice in a wedding ceremony, ⁴⁸ but may also be a royal marriage blessing, a practice known in the ancient Near East. ⁴⁹ In short, we may sum up the blessing this way: may the man of ‭ליח‬ marry the woman of ‭ליח‬ and do ‭ליח‬, that is, to bring about King David.

7. Ruth as a Superior Woman of ‭ליח‬?

Ruth's contribution to the emergence of King David is significant for a number of reasons. First, it reveals another difference between Ruth and the proverbist's woman. To be precise, it makes Ruth stand out or even surpass the woman of ‭ליח‬ in Proverbs 31. The proverbist's woman has no explicit association with a royal family, though she assumes some royal attributes. ⁵⁰ As a whole, the wisdom poem is set in a household (albeit of high society). ⁵¹ In contrast, though Ruth first appears in a domestic scene, she is eventually (and deliberately) ‘transformed’ into someone associated with the Davidic monarchy, as the ending of the story suggests. Thus, while the woman in Proverbs 31 is confined to a routine domestic context, Ruth is elevated from a domestic context to a royal context. Incidentally (or perhaps deliberately), this echoes the proverbist's ideal: ‘Many daughters do ‭ליח‬, but you surpass them all’ (Prov. 31.29). As such, the author of Ruth actually presents us with a different kind of ‭ליח תשא‬, a superior one, at least in terms of social status. This leads us to the second reason.

Ruth's contribution is significant also because it may explain why the author presents a model different from that of Prov. 31.10–31. The fact that Ruth is a different model of ‭ליח תשא‬ is noted by Sakenfeld. She argues that the purpose is to serve as ‘a balance and corrective to any cultural assumption that only married women are truly “worthy”’. ⁵² While it is true that Ruth is called a woman of ‭ליח‬ before her (re)marriage (Ruth 3.11), the present study has shown that she becomes a superior woman of ‭ליח‬ after marriage. This suggests that the reason for the different model is not necessarily due to the fact that she is unmarried; on the contrary, if the foregoing argument is correct, it is the outcome of her marriage (i.e. the emergence of the royal lineage) that is more likely the reason. In other words, from the vantage point of the author, it is Ruth's status of being David's ancestress that makes her a different (and higher status) model of ‭ליח תשא‬

8. Conclusion

In this study I have not only noted the significance of the parallels between the two women of ‭ליח‬ in Proverbs 31 and Ruth, but have also stressed the importance of their differences. I argue that if the parallels associate Ruth with the title ‭ליח תשא‬, the differences set Ruth apart as a different kind of ‭ליח תשא‬. Some of the differences not only distinguish Ruth from the proverbist's woman, but also make the former surpass the latter in status. One such difference is the active role of Boaz, which stands in contrast to the more passive role of the husband of the woman in Proverbs 31. By marrying Ruth (woman of ‭ליח‬), Boaz (man of ‭ליח‬) has allowed the former to participate in doing ‭ליח‬ with him, an endeavor which eventually leads to the emergence of David's royal line. In turn, Ruth's association with the royal line sets her apart from the woman of ‭ליח‬ in Proverbs 31: whereas the latter remains a domestic woman of ‭ליח‬ throughout the poem, Ruth is transformed and elevated to a royal woman of ‭ליח‬ in the course of narration.

The foregoing observations are significant for our understanding of the theological diversity in the Old Testament on foreign women. The Deuteronomic law against admitting Ammonites and Moabites into Yahweh's assembly (Deut. 23.3–7) is applied to inter-marriage with foreign women (‭תוירכנ םישנ‬) in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh. 13.23–30; cf. Ezra 9). Yet, here, one of the prohibited foreign women, a Moabite, is married to a prominent Israelite. Understandably, this inter-marriage has generated scholarly discussion about the theological differences between the book of Ruth and the Deuteronomic materials, ⁵³ and various theories have been offered. ⁵⁴ The present study sheds some light on the theological differences between the book of Ruth and Proverbs. As widely noted, in Proverbs the ‘foreign woman’ (‭הירכנ‬) is the very opposite of wisdom. ⁵⁵ Yet the book of Ruth recounts the transformation of a ‭הירכנ‬ (Ruth 2.10) to an ‭ליח תשא‬ (Ruth 3.11). Regardless of whether one views the woman of ‭ליח‬ in Proverbs 31 as a personification of wisdom or an ideal wife who embodies wisdom, ⁵⁶ she clearly represents the high ideals of the wisdom tradition. Yet the author of Ruth associates the wisdom ideal (‭ליח תשא‬) with a foreign woman (‭הירכנ‬), even one who is superior to that of Proverbs 31! If, as some argue, Proverbs and Ezra–Nehemiah are rooted in the same tradition, ⁵⁷ then our study shows that the book of Ruth critiques that tradition, giving a robustly alternative view of the concepts of ‭ליח תשא‬ and ‭הירכנ‬.