Locating God’s Mighty Acts: God’s Ḥesed, Human Ḥesed
The Hebrew term ḥesed is notoriously difficult to translate. It is typically rendered with the phrases “loving kindness” or “steadfast love.” Other English words used—depending upon context—could be “love,” “devotion,” “loyalty,” or “faithfulness.” While related, these terms convey different shadings of meaning. Furthermore, ḥesed is also found in parallel constructions with terms such as “force” or “strength,” particularly as an act of God to deliver the believer from an enemy; God acts in force to deliver (e.g. Psa.143:12). Some commentators have suggested an expanded lexical range for ḥesed to include definitions of power or strength.1 S. Romerowski, however, offers that this use of ḥesed expresses God’s act of loving kindness on behalf of the believer, even though the act itself is one of violence.2
A conceptual feature consistent in all uses of the term is that ḥesed occurs only within the context of a pre-existing relationship. That is, one does not show loving kindness to another that one is not in relationship with already. Very often, this relationship is understood as a covenant either between God and an individual or community or among members of a particular community. This was a key point made in 1927 by Nelson Glueck’s work on the term, and one that has withstood, with minor adjustments, the scrutiny of later generations.3 Of numerous articles and monographs, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld’s three contributions (1978, 1985, and 1992) have set the modern tone for the discussion and have carefully clarified the lexical, theological, conceptual, and ideological understanding of Hesed.4
The term’s peculiarity is underscored by its various applications, determined by way of agency. Ḥesed can be enacted by God or a human agent. If God is the agent, ḥesed is a theological term. If a human is the agent, ḥesed can fall into either a secular or a religious category. In the secular sense, ḥesed is an act of political or personal motivation. For instance, in 2 Sam. 3: 8, Abner expresses his loyalty (ḥesed) to the house of Saul and Saul’s son, Ishbaal (Ishbosheth). But it is difficult to determine the reason for Abner’s allegiance to Saul’s house. Is it merely political? Elsewhere, the Deutero-Historian (Joshua-2 Kings) communicates the religious significance carried by Saul’s vocation as the “Lord’s anointed.” Even after his own anointing in 1 Samuel 16 and Saul’s repeated efforts to kill him (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:9, and 2 Sam. 1:14), David still acknowledges this office and its importance. Abner’s fidelity to Saul’s house may have been motivated by religious factors and thus the line between secular and religious can be difficult to locate.
In an Old Testament sense, ḥesed defines the attitude of the community of God or one of its members towards others. In fact, the prophetic treatment of the term envisions an expansion of the boundaries of ḥesed to include the entire community of God and not just those in personal relationship with an individual.5 Ḥesed thus defines a characteristic of the community of God; their actions, as representatives of God on earth, are characterized by an attribute they share with God.
This raises important and potentially challenging theological and religious topics. Theologically, ḥesed is predicated on the actions of God, which can be traced to key moments in the life of a biblical community. For instance, Exod. 15: 13 defines God’s mighty acts in bringing the community out of Egypt and moving them towards the Land of Canaan as God’s ḥesed. This display of power in the Exodus account looms large in the rest of the Hebrew Bible (HB), likely influencing the perspectives of prophets, historians, and psalmists alike to refer to God’s power to act on behalf of the community.
This can create some tension for modern believers, who sometimes struggle with the silence of God. Where are such acts today? Some no doubt could cite an invasive and dramatic display of God’s activity, but most believers labor in a faith shrouded in silence from God.
In my teaching experiences at a small, Christian Liberal Arts University, these questions are occasionally asked explicitly, but typically linger in our discussions just below the surface. We see in the biblical record the actions of God to direct, save, challenge, and interrupt human life and activities. We find ourselves separated from the biblical text not only by history and culture, but also by experience. Where are the mighty acts of God, the displays of God’s ḥesed? This can foster a subtle, implicit mistrust of the biblical record. If only God would in-break and show us this display of power and express this ḥesed once more.
This tension is not a modern phenomenon; it also likely challenged some of our biblical forebears. In particular, post-exilic texts reflect the imprimatur of this uncertainty and struggle to retain a faithful witness of God’s sovereignty in the face of empirical data that argue in a different direction. One such work is the book of Ruth, for which the term ḥesed also looms large.
Tamara Eskenazi has made the comment that while ḥesed appears in only three places in Ruth (1:8, 2:20, and 3:10), “…its meaning is woven into the book’s entire fabric.”6 The book is often cited, however, as an example of the secular usage of the term and thus has human agency exclusively in view. Eskenazi rightly clarifies this by suggesting that even though human agency is the primary focus in Ruth, humans who display ḥesed “…mirror the ways of God…” In a portion of Ruth 2:20 (“…who has not abandoned his ḥesed from the living or the dead…”), the antecedent to the pronoun “his” is ambiguous; does it refer to God or to Boaz? The sentence structure seems to indicate Boaz, but the phrase “abandon his ḥesed” appears in only one other place (Gen. 24:27) and is clearly in reference to God. The ambiguity may be intentional.
The question of agency for ḥesed in Ruth is further complicated, or perhaps clarified, since God is a relatively passive figure in the story. Apart from the act of “enabling” Ruth’s pregnancy in Ruth 4:13 and Naomi’s stance in Ruth 1:13 that her travails in exile—loss of husband and sons—is due to God’s hand being against her, there are no displays of God’s activity. Even these two may be put down to prevailing socio-religious conventions: pregnancy is credited to God and Naomi simply articulates views on God’s sovereignty.
But this only sharpens the meaning of ḥesed in Ruth where there is a collision of God’s inactivity and the prevailing importance of ḥesed; God’s inactivity and the human activity of showing ḥesed are coterminous. Here is not the place to press this beyond the story of Ruth, but it may indicate some social, religious, and theological pressures that the book attempts to address.
It is almost certain that Ruth is a post-exilic text. The author and the community had, therefore, the historical vision to see not only Israel’s trials through exile and the period of restoration (which was anything but easy, see Ezra/Nehemiah), but also to face down the realpolitik of living in the shadow of superpowers. Was it possible to continue to hold on to the older traditions of God’s sovereignty and provision—God’s ḥesed—in the face of such memories and realities? Where were God’s mighty acts now? Much of the apocalyptic material, which addressed this very concern in new and profound ways, was yet to be written. Thus, the community faced the seeming silence of God primarily through the prophetic corpora and its own sense of theological and religious sensibilities.
In this light, the book of Ruth is a profound expression of religious and theological commentary. Ruth and Boaz’s commitment to acts of ḥesed, set literarily in the period of the Judges (Ruth 1:1 — a period of great instability and uncertainty) narrates the effect of human acts of ḥesed in stabilizing family units and fostering the future generations (the placement of the genealogical table at the end of Ruth is unique to the book). Thus the inactivity of God does not indicate a loss in the belief in God’s sovereignty. Rather, displays of ḥesed, even those of God, are now primarily expressed through the life of the community. In answer to the questions, Where is God’s ḥesed or God’s activity to be found on earth, the author of Ruth may have responded: "Here, amongst us in the community." Doing the good works of loving kindness, steadfast love, and loyalty towards one another become the "Sinai" moments, the (modern) mighty acts of God.
Notes
1. Kuyper, L.J., “The Meaning of ḥasdo Isa. XL 6,” Vetus Testamentum 13:4 (1963): 489-492 and Whitley, C.F., “The Semantic Range of ḥesed,” Bib 62 (1981): 519-526.
2. Romerkowski, S., “Que Sinifie Le Mot ḥesed” Vetus Testamentum 60:1 (1990): 102.
3. Glueck, Nelson, Hesed in the Bible, (trans. by A Gottschalk, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College: 1927 [ET 1967]).
4. Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Enquiry, (HSM, 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978); Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); “Love,” (Anchor Bible Dictionary; ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992).
5. See Sakenfeld, “Love,” 380.
6. Tamara Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky Ruth (JPS Bible Commentary Series; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011) l.
