Abstract
The book of Ruth is the only text of the Hebrew Bible which lacks a single mention of a nonhuman animal. As such, it has not been studied by scholars with an interest in animals within biblical texts. This article critically addresses this omission of nonhuman animals from Ruth by locating this neglect within the context of other troubling ideological binaries (such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class) which are operative in the narrative. Through an attentiveness to the lack of animals during the famine, harvest, and threshing of the grain in the book, this article suggests that the narrative obscures the crucial contribution of nonhuman animals to society as well as the care they deserve. This therefore indicates how the book of Ruth operates with an anthropocentric human/animal hierarchy whereby nonhumans can be disposed of to advance the interests of humans.
1 Introduction1
It has become fairly common for interpreters and readers to subject the Hebrew Bible to claims of anthropocentrism. Historical assessments of humankindâs abuse of other animals and the ideological underpinnings which have enabled it frequently draw a direct line back to the influence of biblical texts. The Bible is presented almost as the point of origin for the denigration of nonhuman animals in Western culture.2 Biblical scholars have begun to challenge this perspective in recent years as they have demonstrated a wealth of interest in nonhuman animals within the biblical corpus.3 Nevertheless, the Hebrew Bible is rarely univocal on any topic and thus, just as some texts provide positive perspectives on nonhuman animals, there are others which provide evidence of an anthropocentric outlook. The most commonly-cited texts to support this view are Genesis 1 and Psalm 8 which single out humankind to be of primary importance through their unique status amongst other creatures.4 It is the aim of this article to highlight the diversity of perspectives on nonhuman animals in the Hebrew Bible by bringing the book of Ruth into discussions surrounding biblical anthropocentrism.
While nonhuman animals are fairly prevalent throughout the Bible, the book of Ruth is the only text of the Hebrew Bible which omits mention of them entirely. Aside from humans, no other animals live on its pages. The book of Ruthâs lack of attention to nonhuman animals can perhaps be highlighted if it is compared to similar length Hebrew narratives. Other novelistic texts such as Jonah, Tobit, and the court tales of Daniel 1â6 all prominently include animals in their narratives, while even a text like Judith acknowledges them in passing.5 Indeed Jonah has been considered to function as a literary critique of anthropocentrism.6 This article takes the conspicuous absence of nonhuman animals in Ruthâs narrative as an interpretative cue. Despite this text being beloved by many commentators for its focus on lifting up Naomi and Ruth from adversity and destitution, its (lack of) treatment of animals is, as will be argued, troubling.7 The narrative obscures the crucial role of nonhuman animals within the agrarian society of ancient Israel as well as the legal or ethical obligations they were entitled to. As such, the book of Ruth can therefore be held up as an example of an anthropocentric biblical text which enshrines a hierarchy of interests where human animals are important and nonhuman animals are unworthy of narrative focus.
2 Troubling Binaries and Ideological Readings of Ruth
Before turning to consider anthropocentrism and the presence (or absence) of animals within Ruth, other ideological approaches and interpretations of this book are worth considering. This is important as questions associated with a human/animal hierarchy share much with the turn within the humanities to interrogate other hierarchical binaries.8 Stephen Moore suggests that a human/animal binary could indeed be positioned âin a continuous line with the interrogations of the male/female, masculine/feminine, heterosexual/homosexual, white/non-white, and colonizer/colonized hierarchies entailed in feminist studies, gender studies, queer studies, racial/ethnic studies, and postcolonial studies.â9 Such hierarchical binaries are inherently ideological, presenting certain characteristics or groups as favourable to another. Scrutiny of these binaries is important when reading the biblical text as they are operative both in the text and in its readers or interpreters. It is therefore important to âacknowledge that the biblical narrative is fundamentally ideological.â10
This kind of interpretative scrutiny has been particularly acute in the study of Ruth where studies of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and class have grown in recent years.11 Often such studies hold Ruth up as an example of a biblical text which raises the oppressed within traditional hierarchies. For example, one common claim is that the book of Ruth is a narrative which elevates the female characters within the narrative in a counter-cultural way.12 The presence of two female main characters (Naomi and Ruth) who are able to make their way through a male-dominated world has led some to suggest that this narrative is gynocentric.13 Within the wider context of the Hebrew Bible where the focus remains primarily on the male characters, it is easy to see why feminist readers have turned to Ruth as an example to counter this wider androcentrism.14 The heteronormativity of biblical texts has similarly been called into question using the book of Ruth. The prominent affectionate relationship between two women at the heart of the story has given foundation upon which various queer readings of this text have been constructed.15 Recent readings have begun to reinterpret Boazâs sexuality too and suggest that the conclusion of the book of Ruth provides a representation of a queer family.16 Other readings suggest that Ruth inverts hierarchical class structures and gives a hopeful presentation of the lowest class within society.17
Such liberative readings of Ruth are undoubtedly appealing; nevertheless, multiple counter interpretations provide a much less positive assessment of the narrative with regard to traditional hierarchical binaries. In terms of the gender binary in Ruth, a number of studies have suggested that attempts to reclaim the book are misguided. These often point to how the patriarchal social structure is assumed and seemingly affirmed by the narrative itself.18 Similarly, queer readings of Ruth also must grapple with the exploitative elements within the narrative.19 Roland Boer reads the narrative with attention upon the class dynamic and he notes that Boaz and Naomi (the Israelites) are those âwho do not work, who exploit and live off the surplus labour of others.â20 By contrast, the female Moabitess worker Ruth is the one who toils throughout the narrative at the behest of others and eventually disappears from the narrative after all her labours are complete. Such a Marxist reading identifies a clear class-based divide in the text between those who oversee or direct production and the workers who toil as part of it and are disposable once their use has run out.
These conclusions by various feminist, queer, and Marxist interpreters of the book of Ruth demonstrate that it is not an idyllic narrative of liberation and equality. Rather it makes use of exploitative and divisive hierarchical structures in its presentation of events. In the same way as these other boundaries, a human/animal binary can also represent a similar hierarchy which sanctions exploitation by the human of the nonhuman. In such an anthropocentric perspective, the nonhuman becomes unworthy of ethical consideration in their own right and is accorded only instrumental value for how they attend to the well-being of the human.21 This perspective, which privileges the human, is deeply related to other hierarchical structures (such as androcentrism) and is evidenced even within the biblical corpus. Raymond Person has demonstrated how the book of Deuteronomy is both anthropocentric and androcentric in its conception of household structures.22 Thus Ruthâs entanglement with a range of problematic hierarchical structures is indicative that it might also be operating with an anthropocentric human/animal binary.
The androcentric bias of the male interpreters of the tradition, who regard maleness as normative humanity, not only erase womenâs presence in the past history of the community but silence even the questions about their absence. One is not even able to remark upon or notice womenâs absence, since womenâs silence and absence is the norm.27
Feminist interpretation of the Bible has begun to address this ideologically motivated silence; however, a similar interpretative move is necessary to tackle other silences within biblical texts, including those around nonhuman animals. Ruether herself argued that feminist interpretation âmust also criticize humanocentrism: making humans the norm and âcrownâ of creation in a way that diminishes other begins in the community of creation.â28 This article attempts to follow Ruetherâs suggestion and criticise the anthropocentrism of the book of Ruth.
Nonhuman animals were and are significant contributors to societies and an awareness of their relationship vis-Ã -vis humans is important. Within the context of a multispecies society, modern interpreters need to remember that âto ignore animals is to ignore key aspects of our own culture.â29 The omission of nonhuman animals from a narrative thus communicates something about the relative value of the contribution to society made by other animals. Furthermore, as Schipper observes when commenting on Ruth, there âare gaps in any narratorâs representation since it includes or foregrounds a few essential details, but many details remain in the unexpressed background.â30 While nonhuman animals are never mentioned in the text of Ruth, their presence within the âunexpressed backgroundâ still indicates something about how they are treated in comparison to human characters. In the ensuing sections, this article will examine the absent presence of animals within the unexpressed background of Ruth and identify how humans and other animals are correspondingly treated in the text. Through the relegation of the nonhuman to a status which is instrumental and unrecognised, other animals are exploited in the narrative in order to elevate the activity of its human characters.
3 Absent Animals in Ruth
3.1 Animals and the Famine
Within the narrative of Ruth, the absence of nonhuman animals (and the gaps left by their omission) can be felt at several critical points. The first of these is within the initial exposition at the outset of the narrative. Ruth 1:1 introduces the setting of the book as being âin the days when the judges ruledâ and when âthere was a famine [רע×] in the land.â31 This famine is the vehicle by which the reader is introduced to the principal characters of the narrative: Elimelech, Naomi, and their two sons are forced to leave Bethlehem due to the situation; Ruth and Orpah marry into the family during exile in Moab; and the famine is presumably the cause of the death of the three male characters in the family. This shortage of food is therefore a device to get the central human figures (Ruth and Naomi) of the story into the readerâs focus and establish their status as vulnerable widowed women.32 However, a famine would not have affected only one family in Bethlehem but would have been a wider issue that affected society more broadly. When famines are referred to elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, their wider communal effects are often richly described.33 Indeed, biblical texts often explicitly mention the whole country or land as being affected by the famine itself (e.g., Gen. 26:1, 41:54; 2 Kgs 4:38, 8:1; Ps. 105:16). In contrast, the text of Ruth glosses over the broader impact of this famine upon other human members of society as its effects upon other people in Bethlehem are not described in Ruth 1:1. Furthermore, when the remaining family members do return to Judah, the text again does not address the effect of the famine upon wider Judahite human society (Ruth 1:19â22). The narrative is uninterested in dealing with the experiences of other people who also faced this disastrous lack of food, including those who were even more vulnerable than Naomiâs family and would likely have suffered most from the famine.
Nonetheless, in addition to the narrativeâs lack of interest in other humansâ experiences, the opening of the book also obscures the suffering of nonhuman animals. When famines or periods of prolonged hunger are described elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible they directly affect nonhuman animals too. Several biblical texts describe how drought and famine impact the lives of both human and nonhuman animals alike (Ezek. 14:13; Hag. 1:10â11; Sir. 40:8â9). There is typically little differentiation between the famineâs effects upon both groups, however Joel 1 does appear to distinguish between the failed grain harvest which affects humans (Joel 1:17) and the lack of good pasture which affects cattle and sheep (Joel 1:18). Furthermore, a number of passages also suggest that even wild nonhuman animals suffer during a famine as the flora in the wilderness fails (Jer. 14:2â6; Joel 1:20; Hos. 4:3). Indeed, in Genesis the impact of a famine upon nonhuman animals is so prominently understood that a starving cow is utilised therein as a symbol of a famine itself (Gen. 41:27). Such passages clearly indicate there is a shared awareness that, when a famine hits, both human and nonhuman animals suffer from a lack food. This is corroborated by texts which suggest humans provide for their domesticated animals during a famine. Domestic equids, which were used as transport for people and goods, continued to be important during periods of such hardship particularly if people migrated to find new food sources.34 It is therefore not surprising that biblical passages describe equids being fed amidst a famine, whether by searching out new pasture for them (1 Kgs 18:5) or supplying them with grain (Gen. 42:26â27). Similarly, other texts indicate that flocks and herds of domestic bovids were also provided for (Gen. 45:10), and searching out new pasture for them might be the cause of migration during a famine (Gen. 47:4). This care for nonhuman animals suggests that their lives were perceived to be important during a famine, even if just for financial reasons. Other passages intimate that nonhuman animals were not immediately eaten when other food sources ran out and people deemed it preferable to trade them for grain rather than eat them (Gen. 47:15â17). The fact that a donkeyâs head was seemingly such an expensive food item in 2 Kgs 6:25 merely indicates the extreme levels of starvation being experienced within besieged Samaria.35 People would rather keep their nonhuman animals alive rather than consume them. This textual evidence all demonstrates that nonhuman animals were known to suffer during famines in ancient Israel and Judah, and humans would take measures to support other animals during periods of hardship.
Therefore, when the famine is introduced in Ruth 1:1, this adverse event would also have had dire effects upon the nonhuman members of Judahite society generally, or Elimelech and Naomiâs family more specifically. Nevertheless, as noted above, Ruth 1 neglects mention of other nonhuman animals within the famine. This is curious as, based on the evidence above, nonhuman animals seem deeply interconnected with how a famine impacts human society. One potential explanation is that the narrative is particularly terse in its general description of the initial setting of the story. It focuses specifically upon Elimelech and Naomiâs family and thus the effect of the famine upon other characters (both human and nonhuman) simply need not be included.36 If we were to follow this presumption, which is nevertheless still problematic as therefore the narrative must be understood as disregarding any wider negative experiences of the famine, the problem of the book of Ruthâs silence surrounding nonhuman animals remains unaddressed. The family unit was understood within ancient Israel as including more than simply direct relatives. Servants, slaves, and domestic animals would all also have been constituent parts of a family household.37 Even if the narrative is only narrowly focussed on Elimelech and Naomiâs family, the lack of reference to other members of this wider familial group (including nonhuman animals) reveals how the narrative focus remains only upon specific human members of this group. Moreover, this problem becomes more acute with the description of the familyâs migration to Moab (Ruth 1:2) due to the famine. As noted above, nonhuman animals (particularly equids) were an important method of transport for migrants thus the mere fact that the family travels to Moab in Ruth 1 indicates the presence of domesticated animals in assisting with this migration. Another possible explanation for the lack of reference to nonhuman animals (or lower status human servants) in Ruth 1 could be that these other members of the family structure have already succumbed to the famine and died. This would explain the narrative silence surrounding them as, once dead, they have effectively been eliminated from the narrativeâs scope. This is perhaps a neat solution; nevertheless, it would still not absolve the narrative from its failure to recognise the presence of nonhuman animals within the context of a Judahite famine. Indeed, it makes their omission all the worse as the narrative must then be understood as simply glossing over the deaths of these domestic animals (and presumably the otherwise unmentioned servants or slaves within the family). The suffering of the animals within the context of a famine would narratively still be disregarded.
This lack of interest in the suffering or death of nonhuman animals amidst the famine is subsequently confirmed when the lack of food is rectified. Naomi and her daughters-in-law set off to Bethlehem in Judah as they learn that âthe lord had considered his people [×¢××] and given them foodâ (Ruth 1:6). God miraculously provides food for his people but the text makes no mention of any wider provision beyond this human community.38 While nonhuman animals might nevertheless indirectly benefit from this provision of food within the community to which they belong, the divine intervention is explicitly directed towards the people and not to the other animals. This introductory section of Ruth therefore ignores the negative consequences of the famine upon other nonhuman animals. Other biblical texts demonstrate a level of acknowledgement and even concern for the suffering of domestic animals during drought or famine, but this is not the case in Ruth which silently disregards the presence of other creatures in the opening of the narrative.
3.2 Animals and the Harvest
Secondly, nonhuman animals are absent in the narrativeâs discussion of the harvest. The first chapter of Ruth ends with a statement about the time during which Naomi and Ruth arrive in Bethlehem. As they enter, it is âthe beginning of the barley harvest [×ת××ת קצ×ר שער××]â (Ruth 1:22). After a period of famine, the final words of Ruth 1 introduce the start of a new period which is characterised by the availability (rather than scarcity) of food. In Ruth 2, the focus of the narrative switches to address how these two women will be able to survive in Judah without their own cultivated land or traditional familial support networks. The solution which Ruth initiates is to go out into the fields and glean amongst the cereal crops (Ruth 2:2â3). This plan relies upon a tradition of gleaning laws which were essentially a legal restraint upon farmers. Such ancient laws required harvesters not to reap right to the edge of a crop field and to leave any additional misplaced grains where they lay (Lev. 19:9, 23:22; Deut. 24:19). As well as harvesting grain, this gleaning law applied to the crop from a vineyard (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21) or an olive tree orchard (Deut. 24:20). The purpose of such prescribed practices was to provide food for the poor and the foreigner (Lev. 19:10, 23:22), as well as the orphan and the widow (Deut. 24:19â21). Essentially, those who did not have their own land or who were unable to support themselves would have access to a necessary food supply. As Ruth and Naomi were both widows, and Ruth a Moabite to boot, they would be reliant upon such legal structures to support themselves in their new Judahite home.
When in the process of gleaning, Ruth encounters Boaz who owns the field and he unexpectedly allows her increased access to the grain on his land which goes beyond the legal expectation. The gleaning laws allowed the disadvantaged to glean on the edges of the field and to pick up any sheaves the reapers had forgotten, but Boaz allows Ruth to glean immediately after the workers reaping in the field (Ruth 2:8â9) which would guarantee her more grain than others who were not able to glean in this way.39 Boaz even specifically instructs his harvesters to deliberately leave grain behind for Ruth to then pick up (Ruth 2:15â16). This seems generous, but it is unlikely that Ruth was the only individual who was reliant on Boazâs field to glean food to survive. As recognised earlier, the gleaning laws allowed for all the poor (including widows and orphans) and foreigners to glean from fields. The mention of the other young women within the narrative (× ×¢×¨×ת in Ruth 2:8, 23) can provide evidence for the prevalence of gleaning as a way of life. Though commentators have often understood these young women as exemplifying the different gendered roles amongst Israelites during harvest, Ruth 2:23 implies that these other women are gleaning too.40 Thus, through his favouring of Ruth, Boaz therefore necessarily privileges her over and above the other people in need who also survive by gleaning from his land. This unequal, or perhaps even unjust, treatment of Ruth when she is gleaning would no doubt have provoked the ire of other people reliant on the grain.41 This ill-feeling would have been even more acute given Bethlehemite society was only recently recovering from a famine. Nonetheless, this privileging of Ruth is not only carried out by Boaz but also by the narrator who refrains from providing names for the other gleaners. They are simply identified as young men and women.42
The narrative does not simply privilege Ruthâs gleaning over other peopleâs access to the same grain, but also privileges Ruth over nonhuman animalsâ nourishment too. The legal regulations which govern gleaning do not explicitly apply to other animals, but a concern for the provision of food for them undergirds other laws and customs within the Hebrew Bible. The legal traditions surrounding the Sabbatical Year (Exod. 23:10â11; Lev. 25:2â7) demonstrate a clear requirement for the care of nonhuman animals. Every seventh-year landowners are required to leave their fields uncultivated and let them go fallow. The produce of the land is then available to be consumed by human inhabitants of the area as well as by livestock and wild animals (Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:7). These legal stipulations give human and nonhuman animals equal consideration and privileges. Indeed, Saul Olyan has recently argued they ascribe a particular right to other animals here.43 Such passages evidence a wider perception that nonhuman animals were also ultimately reliant on human cultivation, just as the poor and foreigners were. Wild animals could evidently eat from uncultivated land during a Sabbatical Year and their taste for farmed crops was likely not restricted to this specific period.44 Foxes, for example, are responsible for spoiling both vineyards (Song 2:15) and grainfields (Judg. 15:4â5). If wild animals lived in and amongst cultivated land then they presumably also profited from its resulting produce year-round. Indeed, domesticated animals were also reliant upon consuming the grain from cultivated fields both directly (as noted above during discussion of the Sabbatical Year laws) but also indirectly as it would eventually be used as a staple fodder for domesticated animals.45 For example, in 1 Kgs 5:8 barley and straw (××שער×× ××ת××) are identified as the principal food items provided for Solomonâs equid steeds. Barley, as a less palatable grain than others, was even grown specifically as an animal feed.46 Based on textual and archaeological evidence, Rebekah Welton has argued that in ancient Israel â[f]odder for cattle thus derived from the same source as human food; cereal cultivation â¦, and consequently cattle were dependent on their humans for rationing this to them while humans were dependent on their cattle to plough their land for cereal production.â47 In the context of a recent famine, nonhuman animals would no doubt be even more reliant on this food source from cultivated fields. This is evidenced by texts covered in the preceding section which describe how animals are still fed and provided for by humans during a famine (e.g., Gen. 42:26â27).
Given this provision for nonhuman animals from crops cultivated by humans in the Hebrew Bible, it striking that the book of Ruth does not demonstrate or even acknowledge this. Just as Boaz and the narrator seem to favour Ruth over the others gleaning in the fields, so too does the narrative appear to favour the human over the nonhuman animal when describing the produce from the harvest. The text does not recognise the reliance of nonhuman animals upon human cultivation as evidenced within other biblical texts, instead it focusses solely on the humans who have access to the crops in the field (Ruth 2:8â9) and who are fed by Boaz (Ruth 2:14). The impression this gives is that the narrative implicitly favours or prioritises humans while the needs of nonhuman animals are seemingly unimportant. This is potentially only made more acute given how nonhuman animals seem to have assisted humans in the production of crops. As Welton indicates, humans were reliant on cattle for ploughing the land as a prerequisite to then sowing crops and eventually harvesting them.48 Furthermore, there is good evidence that the food which Boaz offers to Ruth (Ruth 2:14) consists not just of products resulting from the crop harvest (e.g., bread) but also produce from his livestock. Scholarly consensus agrees that the ×××¥, which Boaz suggests Ruth dip her bread into, is a kind of sour drink.49 It is hard to accurately identify this liquid but it may refer to yogurt or milk.50 If so, this is another example of how the narrative can comfortably portray the human charactersâ needs being met through the utilisation of their livestock, in this case through the consumption of dairy products. Thus, while the humans in the text can profit from nonhuman animals during the harvest, there is no corresponding narrative interest in the vital sustenance humans could or should provide for nonhuman animals.
3.3 Animals and the Threshing Floor
The third way in which a reader of the Ruth narrative can detect the absence of nonhuman animals is when events move to the threshing floor in chapter 3. After the harvests of both barley and wheat have concluded (Ruth 2:23), Naomi realises that Boaz will be winnowing barley at the threshing floor and sends Ruth to meet with him there (3:1â5). This scene of the narrative relies upon subsequent stages in the agricultural processing of grain after it has been harvested. Bundles of harvested stalks would be taken to a hard and level surface where they were beaten or thrashed to dislodge the grain from the straw. This process of threshing gives its name to the area where the activity occurred and would often be located near to fields but outside the gates of settlements themselves.51 After this, the process of winnowing could begin whereby the resultant mixture was separated into chaff and grain. This was often accomplished by throwing the mixture into the wind whereupon the chaff is blown away and the grain falls to the ground. In Ruth 3, Boaz is engaged in this second stage of crop processing when the narrative refers to his activity on the threshing floor.
Once Ruth arrives at the threshing floor, the narrative only mentions Boaz as being present and he is the only character described as having been engaged in any agricultural processing of the grain at the threshing floor (Ruth 3:2).52 Despite this, actual threshing floors were generally communal spaces which multiple different people would share for the same purpose.53 Furthermore, the practice of processing grain likely involved a number of individuals as it was a particularly labour intensive process; some estimates suggest a quarter of all pre-mechanised agricultural labour was devoted to threshing alone.54 This evidence leads to the conclusion that other people would have used the same threshing floor as Boaz and would have been working alongside him. For example, Jonathan Gardner suggests that the young men who had completed the harvest on Boazâs land would also have gone to the threshing floor.55 A further indication that more people would have been present is the fact that Boaz sleeps on the floor after the threshing is completed. Based on field observations of agrarian life in 20th-century Palestine, Gustav Dalman suggested that in ancient Israel the owner of the grain commonly slept overnight on the floor near to the recently processed grain in order to protect it from potential theft while it awaited transportation in the morning. However, the owner would often be joined by his whole family who would camp through the night to keep watch over the grain on the threshing floor too.56 City guards could perhaps have watched over the grain during the night too and this may explain the frequent siting of threshing floors near to the gates of a city.57 The concern for Ruth to leave before she might be seen by another person (Ruth 3:14) might indeed betray the fact that other people are potentially within the vicinity of the threshing floor. Therefore, due to the communal nature of such spaces, Boaz would likely not have been alone at the threshing floor. Nevertheless, the narrative focuses exclusively on its two principal characters: Boaz and Ruth. This obscures the communal labour and investment inherent in the processing of grain, and the focus on Boaz here might indeed be read as his appropriation of âthe surplus labour and valueâ of others who have worked and toiled for him.58
Such conclusions are equally applicable to the absence of nonhuman animals within this scene. In addition to the communal human labour involved in the threshing and winnowing of grain, nonhuman animals also played a significant role in these processes. Firstly, oxen often transported the stalks of grain from the field to the threshing floor. Job 39:12 describes how a wild ox cannot be trusted to bring or return grain to the threshing floor, with the necessary implication that domestic oxen could indeed fulfil this job. Furthermore, while humans could thresh the grain themselves using flails or sticks, nonhuman animals (particularly oxen but also donkeys) were often employed as part of this process. By either walking over the stalks or pulling a threshing sledge with flint teeth on the underside, such domestic animals would efficiently thresh the grains.59 The employment of oxen for this role is clear in 2 Sam. 24:18â25 where David purchases both oxen and threshing sledges from the owner of a threshing floor. The metaphorical imagery in Mic. 4:12â13 and Jer. 51:33 also suggests an ox was involved in the threshing process. There are also explicit legal protections for nonhuman animals when they are engaged in threshing: Deut. 25:4 prohibits the muzzling of oxen when they are treading out grain. Recent studies conclude that this confers a specific right to the working oxen who are then allowed to eat the grain as they are threshing it. Thus the âoxâs potential desire to eat grain while threshing outweighs in importance the farmerâs desire to preserve his grain for human consumption.â60 This legal restriction appears to prevent abuse of working animals in the form of malnourishment, particularly during a famine.61 The work of nonhuman animals within the threshing process as presented in the Hebrew Bible is thus valuable enough to be legally recognised through protections for individual bovine workers.
Given this key role that nonhuman animals seem to have played in agricultural activity in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israel, Ruth 3 should presumably likewise acknowledge their presence during the processing of grain. Boaz has doubtless relied on oxen to both bring the harvested stalks to the threshing floor and then to complete the threshing process itself before he can even begin to winnow the grain from the chaff. Moreover, he will need to rely upon oxen once again to transport the grain away in the morning and thus they must have been kept nearby overnight. However, just as with its treatment of the other human workers involved in these processes, the narrator also ignores the nonhuman animal workers. The narrative skips over both the transport and threshing of the grain as events move from the end of the harvest (Ruth 2:23) immediately to the process of winnowing (Ruth 3:1â2). For the reader of the narrative, it appears as if the grain has promptly and easily been transported and processed. Similarly, the narrative also omits the act of moving the grain away from the threshing floor as, having spoken with Ruth, Boaz returns to the city (Ruth 3:15) and immediately begins dealing with legal issues at the gate (Ruth 4:1â4).62 Interestingly, though no nonhuman animals are mentioned as transporting the grain away here, this activity is alluded to when Ruth is enlisted by Boaz to transport grain to Naomi in Ruth 3:15. The barley is âput onâ (××שת ×¢×××) Ruth by Boaz, in a similar way to how grain is laden on donkeys elsewhere (e.g., see: Gen. 42:26, ××ש×× ×ת־ש××¨× ×¢×Ö¾××ר×××). This suggests that the work of nonhuman animals is here being transferred to a human agent.63 Nevertheless, the labour involved in threshing and transporting grain is not insignificant, evidenced by the fact that humans invented threshing sledges and enlisted animals to assist with it, but it is dealt with as such by the text of Ruth. This presentation allows the narrative to overlook and essentially disregard the substantial labour provided by nonhuman animals on behalf of the principal human characters. Such uninterest in the labour of nonhuman animals corroborates the similar disregard for the presumed plowing oxen of Ruth 2. The narrator passes over the contributions of both Boazâs human and nonhuman animal workers to the processing of his grain. Unlike Deut. 25:4, which values the oxenâs interest to eat grain while threshing above the human ownerâs interest in preserving their product, the narrative in Ruth 3 appears to not value even mentioning the oxenâs contribution at all. Moreover, while the legal tradition of Deuteronomy is concerned with the domestic animalsâ ability to eat from the grain, Boazâs concern (and that of the narrator) is to only allow human characters (Ruth and Naomi) to eat of the grain. This section therefore further obscures the equal participation and involvement of nonhuman animals in agriculture and presents the whole endeavour as an exclusively human affair.
4 Implications of the Narrativeâs Anthropocentrism
The preceding discussion demonstrates that the absence of nonhuman animals can be detected in several key sections of the narrative. The plot of the book of Ruth hinges upon the occurrence of a famine, the harvest of barley, and the threshing of crops, and these three elements are all referred to multiple times in the text. Nevertheless, the presence of nonhuman animals and their relationship to these key events is entirely omitted from the text. This article has shown that this absence is problematic as nonhuman animals had an interest in, and were key social contributors towards, responding to each of these events within ancient society. While these other animals may be omitted due to the economy of the narrative, this nonetheless betrays an ideological decision about which elements are worth focussing on or bringing to the readerâs attention. Nonhumans are evidently not one of these elements. Thus, even if they are omitted simply because this is a short narrative, by not attending to nonhuman animals this book presents an incomplete and anthropocentric picture of society where only humans can impact events and be impacted by them. This can, in turn, have real world implications for nonhuman animals as this false image of society presented by the narrative can facilitate a wider conception whereby humans can ignore animals and disregard their suffering.64 The bookâs narrative disregard for nonhuman animals should therefore give contemporary readers cause for caution.
Furthermore, the anthropocentrism within the narrative should also impact our understanding of how other ideological boundaries function in the book of Ruth. As already acknowledged above, these hierarchical binaries (such as between man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual, or human/animal) are interconnected and they do not operate in isolation. Indeed, the human/animal binary can be considered foundational to these other power dynamics as it justifies the exploitation and abuse of human groups along similar hierarchical lines. As Cary Wolfe suggests, so long as humans exploit and dispose of other animals âsimply because of their species, then the humanist discourse of species will always be available for use by some humans against other humans as well.â65 As the book of Ruth has been shown to have an anthropocentric focus, and an associated disregard for nonhuman animals, it perpetuates this oppressive human/animal binary which can in turn be utilised to resource oppression along other ideological hierarchies. This not only indicates that Ruth is not liberative for those perceived to be on the subordinate side of the human/animal binary, but also militates against attempts to construct any liberationist reading of Ruth. The narrative cannot successfully be understood as liberative for any human group while it maintains an anthropocentric binary which gives foundation to these other oppressive hierarchies. Thus the evidence outlined here of a human/animal power dynamic in this narrative should cause readers to reconsider other liberationist readings too and may even substantiate readings which find oppression in the text.
5 Conclusion
Scholars with an interest in biblical animality have not often, if ever, studied the book of Ruth.66 This is for good reason as it is the only text of the Hebrew Bible which fails to mention a single nonhuman animal. This article has focussed on the conspicuous lack of nonhuman animals within three major aspects of the narrative of Ruth. Firstly, the description of the famine in Ruth 1 focuses upon how it affects Elimelech and Naomiâs family with little acknowledgement of its effect upon wider Judahite society and with no acknowledgement of the suffering of other animals during this event. This is particularly noticeable as other Hebrew Bible texts demonstrate an awareness of the effect of famine upon other animals as well as detailing attempts by humans to supply food for them amidst this context. Secondly, during the barley harvest of Ruth 2, Boaz grants particular favour to Ruth by letting her glean grain from the fields. This goes above and beyond the requirements of the law which results in Ruth having favoured access to the food from the field compared to the other human gleaners. While the narrative focuses on this provision of food for Ruth, it neglects any mention of nourishment for other animals despite biblical legal texts prescribing this kind of provision and the historical dependence of livestock on humans in ancient agrarian societies. Thirdly, when events move to the threshing floor in Ruth 3, the narrative describes Boaz alone as being involved in the processing of the grain. It hints at the idea that other humans may be near the scene but other animals are once more entirely absent. This absence is again conspicuous given the important role domestic livestock played in ensuring the threshing and winnowing of grain was completed.
The preceding discussion suggests that there are three realms of narrative interest in the book of Ruth. The first, and the group of primary importance, is the family of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz who the narrative particularly favours and it emphasises their labours and survival throughout the events. Other human characters remain nameless throughout the text and their needs are seemingly of secondary importance to those of the main family in the narrative, but their survival and involvement is still of some tangential concern to the overall book. Finally, there are the nonhuman animal members of society who are not just tangential but are entirely absent.67 The narrative as a whole demonstrates no concern with their interests, labour, or survival. The complete omission of nonhuman animals is significant as the book of Ruth focuses so much of its plot upon ancient agricultural practices, customs, and laws within which nonhuman animals played a prominent role. Given this context, the absence of animals within the narrative of Ruth is therefore even more striking. While this narrative neglect of other animals may be explicable as the result of a narrative decision to highlight the main human charactersâ plight, by omitting the crucial place and role of animals the narrative ultimately presents an anthropocentric vision of the world which does not value the position or contribution of nonhuman societal agents.
While several scholars have previously and satisfactorily problematised the suggestion that the whole Bible is an anthropocentric text, Ruthâs silence on the role or presence of nonhuman animals reveals that some biblical texts are indeed anthropocentric in their scope of interest. Such a focus is confirmed at the close of the book where the primary concern of the text appears to be the continuation of a specific human lineage (Ruth 4:13-22).68 In light of this contrast, and the previous discussion, this article proposes that the book of Ruth should be considered a prime example of an anthropocentric biblical text which operates with a human/animal hierarchy and favours humans over other nonhuman animals who are entirely absent from the narrativeâs concern. This detection of a human/animal hierarchy within the book also potentially undermines attempts to construct liberative readings of the narrative based on other oppressive hierarchies.
I would like to thank Suzanna Millar and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments in shaping this article.
For a summary of such claims, see: H. Strømmen, Biblical Animality After Jacques Derrida (Semeia, 91; Atlanta: sbl Press, 2018), pp. 10â15.
For example, see: J. Klawans, âSacrifice in Ancient Israel: Pure Bodies, Domesticated Animals, and the Divine Shepherd,â in P. Waldau and K. Patton (eds.), A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), pp. 65â80; I. Breier, An Ethical View of Human-Animal Relations in the Ancient Near East (Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series; Cham: Springer, 2022); S.M. Olyan, Animal Rights and the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
For discussion surrounding this perceived anthropocentricity of such texts, see: R.A. Simkins, âAnthropocentrism and the Place of Humans in the Biblical Tradition,â RelSoc Supplement 9: The Greening of the Papacy (2013), pp. 16â29; N.C. Habel, An Inconvenient Text: Is a Green Reading of the Bible Possible? (Adelaide: atf Press, 2009), pp. 1â10.
See: Jon. 4:11; Tob. 6:1â6; Dan. 4:12; Jdt. 11:7.
R.F. Person Jr, ââYour Wives, Your Children, and Your Livestockâ Domesticated Beings as Religious Objects in the Book of Deuteronomy,â in C. Deane-Drummond, D. Clough, and B. Artinian-Kaiser (eds.), Animals as Religious Subjects: Transdisciplinary Perspectives (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), pp. 227â242 (238â240). For a more rounded perspective on animals in Jonah, see: S. Millar, âAnimals in the Book of Jonah,â in K. Vermeulen (ed.), Jonah (Themes and Issues in Biblical Studies; Sheffield: Equinox, forthcoming).
For positive assessments of the narrativeâs treatment of Ruth and Naomi, see: R.L. Hubbard Jr., The Book of Ruth (nicot; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 1; E.J. Hamlin, Ruth: Surely There is a Future (itc; Edinburgh: Handsel, 1996), p. 1.
For this wider turn in the humanities, see: V. Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 41â68.
S. Moore, âIntroduction: From Animal Theory to Creaturely Theology,â in S.D. Moore (ed.), Divinanimality: Animal Theory, Creaturely Theology (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014), pp. 1â16 (2). Such a continuum is not without its problems, as Moore notes.
E. Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman (JSOTSup, 310; London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), p. 36.
For a summary of such approaches, see: J.M. Matheny, âRuth in Recent Research,â cbr 19.1 (2020), pp. 8â35.
For example, Robert Martinez describes how Ruth is often seen as âan atypical Biblical narrativeâ as it âelevates and makes prominent women and their concerns;â see: R. Martinez, âRuth â A Case for Women, or a Case for Patriarchy?â Australia Religion Studies Review 12.1 (1999), p. 40â46 (40).
C.L. Meyers, âReturning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth,â in A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Ruth (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), pp. 85â115 (86); A. Ostriker, âThe Book of Ruth and the Love of the Land,â BibInt 10.4 (2002), pp. 343â358 (347); M. Verman, âAbigail, Ruth and the Case for Female Biblical Authorship,â Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary E-Journal 19.2 (2022): 1â58, doi: 10.33137/wij.v19i2.42682.
For example, see: I. Fischer, âThe Book of Ruth: A Feminist Commentary to the Torah?â in A. Brenner (ed.) Ruth and Esther (A Feminist Companion to the Bible Series, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), pp. 24â49; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), pp. 166â199.
For example, see: R. Alpert, âFinding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth,â in J.A. Kates and G.T. Reimer (eds.), Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New York: Ballantine, 1994), pp. 91â96; M. West, âRuth,â in D. Guest, R.E. Goss, M. West, and T. Bohache (eds.), The Queer Bible Commentary, (London: scm, 2006), 190â194. See also: J.L. Koosed, Gleaning Ruth: A Biblical Heroine and Her Afterlives (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2011), 50â63.
B. Krutzsch, âUn-Straightening Boaz in Ruth Scholarship,â BibInt 23 (2015), pp. 541â552. See also: C.M. Duncan, âThe Book of Ruth: On Boundaries, Love, and Truth,â in R.E. Goss and M. West (eds.), Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrims Press, 2000), 92â102.
For the bookâs presentation of hope for the lowest class (widows), see: Ostriker, âBook of Ruth and the Love of the Land,â p. 347. See also: N. Aschkenasy, âReading Ruth through a Bakhtinian Lens: The Carnivalesque in a Biblical Tale,â jbl 126.3 (2007), pp. 437â453.
See: E. Fuchs, âThe History of Women in Ancient Israel: Theory, Method, and the Book of Ruth,â in C. Vander Stichele and T. Penner (eds.), Her Masterâs Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse (gpbs, 9; Atlanta: sbl Press, 2005), pp. 211â231; Martinez, âRuth â A Case for Women;â and J.W. Blotz, âBitterness and Friendship: A Feminist Exegesis of the Book of Ruth,â CurTM 32 (2005), pp. 47â54.
R. Graybill, ââEven unto this Bitter Lovingâ: Unhappiness and Backward Feelings in Ruth,â BibInt 29.3 (2021), pp. 308â331.
R. Boer, Marxist Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), p. 86.
See the discussion of anthropocentrism in: V. Plumwood, Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 123â142.
Person, ââYour Wives, Your Children, and Your Livestockâ,â pp. 227â242. The interconnected nature of hierarchies of gender, ethnicity and species in the Hebrew Bible has also been demonstrated in: S.R. Millar, âThe Poor Manâs Ewe Lamb (2 Sam 12:1â4) in Intersectional, Interspecies Perspective,â vt 73 (2020): 360â386.
S. S. Lanser, The Narrative Act (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 214.
F.E. Greenspahn, âA Typology of Biblical Women,â Judaism 31.1 (1983), p. 43â50 (47).
J. Plaskow, Standing Against Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1991), 25â26. This has recently been contested in: A. Shapira, âOn Womanâs Equal Standing in the Bible â A Sketch: A Feminist Re-Reading of the Hebrew Bible: A Typological View,â Hebrew Studies 51 (2010): 7â41 (22â25).
W. L. Humphreys, âWhereâs Sarah? Echoes of a Silent Voice in the Akedah,â Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 81 (1998): 491â521; P. Trible, âGenesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah,â in A. Back (ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 1999), 1â18; W. Zieler, âIn Search of a Feminist Reading of the Akedah,â Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Womenâs Studies & Gender Issues 9 (2005): 10â26.
R.R. Ruether, âFeminist Interpretation: A Method of Correlation,â in L.M. Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), pp. 111â124 (113).
Ruether, âFeminist Interpretation: A Method of Correlation,â p. 116.
E. Fudge, âThe Dog is Himself: Humans, Animals, and Self-Control in The Two Gentlemen of Verona,â in L. Maguire (ed.), How to Do Things with Shakespeare (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), pp. 185â209 (187).
J. Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (ab, 7D; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), p. 24.
Biblical verse numberings will follow the Hebrew sequencing. English translations will follow the nrsv.
B. Britt, âDeath, Social Conflict, and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible,â JHebS 5 (2005), pp. 1â28 (8â9).
For example, see: Gen. 41:53â57; Deut. 28:53â57; Neh. 5:1â5. For fuller discussion of famines within the context of ancient Israel, see: W.C. Robertson, Drought, Famine, Plague and Pestilence: Ancient Israelâs Understandings of and Responses to Natural Catastrophes (Gorgias Biblical Studies, 45; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010).
For a discussion of famine as a cause of migration in relation to Ruth, see: T.C. Snow, âAgricultural Dimensions of the Book of Ruthâ (PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 2016), pp. 36â60.
K.C. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol (hacl, 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 30â31.
For other gaps in the narratorâs presentation of the famine, see: Schipper, Ruth, p. 24.
C.L. Meyers, âThe Family in Early Israel,â in L. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J.J. Collins, and C.L. Meyers (eds.), Families in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), pp. 1â47 (14); Schipper, Ruth, pp. 44â45.
The Hebrew word ×¢× which is translated as âpeopleâ is a common word referring to a community, kinship, or clan. In a few instances this can be used to refer to nonhuman animals (e.g., Prov. 30:25â26, Ps. 74:14) but this is a particularly rare usage that only appears in poetic texts and appears to be used figuratively. There is no reason to presume this is how it functions in the narrative of Ruth.
Hubbard, Book of Ruth, p. 158; A.E. Cundall and L. Morris, Judges and Ruth (totc; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1968), p. 275. For a counter-reading to this, see: F.W. Bush, Ruth-Esther (wbc, 9; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), pp. 114â117.
Women are often understood as collecting and binding piles of grain after they have been cut by the male harvesters; see: Bush, Ruth-Esther, p. 121. For the evidence that the other women should be understood as gleaners, see: Boer, Marxist Criticism of the Bible, p. 79.
Bush (Ruth-Esther, p. 114) suggests it would have provoked the other working womenâs âill will and enmity.â
To use the words of Robert Hubbard (Book of Ruth, p. 156), Ruth might therefore be thought of as âthe most favoured gleaner.â For an approach to being attentive to such unnamed characters in biblical texts, see: G. Hens-Piazza, The Supporting Cast of the Bible: Reading on Behalf of the Multitude (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020).
Olyan, Animals Right and the Hebrew Bible, pp. 24â32.
Timothy Snow notes that wild animals were likely to consume young plants before they were ready to harvest; see: Snow, âAgricultural Dimensions,â p. 98.
As a comparison, half of the cultivated barley in the contemporary world is still fed directly to animals; see: Snow, âAgricultural Dimensions,â p. 24.
D. Irvin, âFood and Water,â in C.C. Kroeger and M.J. Evans (eds.), The ivp Womenâs Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), pp. 74â75 (74).
R. Welton, âHe is a Glutton and a Drunkardâ: Deviant Consumption in the Hebrew Bible (BibInt, 183; Leiden: Brill, 2021), p. 68.
In addition to pulling a plough, domestic animals might also be led over the sown seed in fields in order to press it into the ground; see: Snow, âAgricultural Dimensions,â p. 72.
See: Schipper, Ruth, p. 125.
The Syriac reads ḥalbÄ (milk) in place of ×××¥ here. For the suggestion of yogurt, see: S. Avitsur, Man and His Work: Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in the Holy Land [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Carta and Israel Exploration Society, 1976), p. 64.
J.L. Waters, Threshing Floors in Ancient Israel: Their Ritual and Symbolic Significance (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), p. 2.
The only potential reference to anybody other than Ruth and Boaz being at the threshing floor is Boazâs apparent concern that Ruth not be noticed (Ruth 3:14), but this comment still does not explicitly require anyone else to actually be present there. It may, for example, simply refer to the possibility of other people arriving onto the scene or observing events there.
Waters, Threshing Floors, p. 11.
G. Clark, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 286.
J. Gardner, âThreshing Floors as Object and Metaphor,â Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 17.2 (2014), pp. 119â134 (127).
G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (7 vols.; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927â1942), vol. 3, pp. 108â109.
S. Smith, âThe Threshing Floor at the City Gate,â peq 78.1 (1946), pp. 5â14 (12).
Boer, Marxist Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 86.
For the use of animals on threshing floors, see: Waters, Threshing Floors, pp. 3â4.
Olyan, Animals Right and the Hebrew Bible, p. 108.
Olyan, Animals Right and the Hebrew Bible, p. 108.
Many traditions of Ruth 3:15 read a feminine subject for the verb â thus: âshe went into the city.â Nevertheless, the Hebrew text has a masculine form (××××) suggesting that Boaz leaves the scene in this verse. For an outline of the text-critical issues here, see: Schipper, Ruth, p. 153.
A parallel to this might be Gen. 22:6. After Abraham has left the donkey behind, he then puts the wood upon his son Isaac.
Several recent studies have demonstrated how the presentation of animals within narrative literature can affect peopleâs concern and attitudes towards other animals; see: W. MaÅecki, P. Sorokowski, B. PawÅowski, and M. CieÅski, Human Minds and Animal Stories: How Narratives Make Us Care About Other Species (Routledge Studies in World Literatures and the Environment; London: Routledge, 2019); W. MaÅecki, B. PawÅowski, P. Sorokowski, and A. Oleszkiewicz, âFeeling for Textual Animals: Narrative Empathy Across Species Lines,â Poetics 74 (2019): 101334, doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2018.11.003; A. Petterson, G. Currie, S. Friend, and H.J. Ferguson, âThe Effect of Narratives on Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare and Pro-Social Behaviour on Behalf of Animals: Three Pre-Registered Experiments,â Poetics 94 (2022): 101709, doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2022.101709.
C. Wolfe, Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), p. 8.
For example, despite its frequent reference to âEarthâs creaturesâ, even the recent Earth Bible Commentary on Ruth does not refer explicitly to animals at any point; see: A.M. Sinnott, Ruth: An Earth Bible Commentary (London: T&T Clark Bloomsbury, 2020).
There may indeed be human members of society (such as children or people with disabilities) who are also entirely absent in the narrative too. For a reading of Naomiâs character using disability perspectives, see: Z. Mo, âWomen and Aged Disability: A Study of Naomiâs Gender Identity and Its Transformation in the Book of Ruth,â International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 25 (2023), pp. 99â112.
James McKeown describes how Ruth reaches its âgoalâ of continuing this familyâs lineage which has been the underlying issue in the narrative; see: J. McKeown, Ruth (The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015), p. 70.
