1. Boling, Judges, 215–16. But see Block, Judges, Ruth, 389.
2. Webb, The Book of Judges, 161.
3. There is a Hittite parallel for these thirty sons and thirty daughters, though the Hittite story is quite different. See H. A. Hoffner Jr., “The Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa,” COS, 1.71; M. Tsevat, “Two Old Testament Stories and Their Hittite Analogues,” JAOS 103 (1983): 35–42.
4. Lit., “to the outside” and “from the outside.” Family or clan is implied in the ellipsis.
5. The name Elon is also the name of Esau’s “Hittite” father-in-law (Gen. 26:34; cf. 36:2).
6. It is also possible that there is a wordplay here with ʾayil (despot; cf. Ex. 15:15) (see KBL2, 37–38). If so, then the name Elon ʾêlôn) is punned with “little despot” (ʾayilôn).
7. Block, Judges, Ruth, 390.
8. For the identification of Pirathon, see G. Galil, “Pirathon, Parathon and Timnatha,” ZDPV 109 (1993): 49–53; E. A. Knauf, “Pireathon—Farʿaṭ,” BN 51 (1990): 19–24; and N. Naʾaman, “Pirathon and Ophrah,” BN 50 (1989): 11–16.
9. Cf. the ironic border description given in Judg. 1:36.
10. This notion appears again in the debate between the Israelites and Samuel over the issue of judgeship versus monarchy (with special reference to Samuel’s sons); see 1 Sam. 8:1–5.
1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 160.
2. See J. A. Freeman, “Samson’s Dry bones: A Structural Reading of Judges 13–16,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis (2 Vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1974, 1982), 2:145–60.
3. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 223.
4. Ibid., 221–22. According to O’Connell, the Othniel and Ehud accounts have only one climax each, and the cycles of Deborah/Barak/Jael, Gideon/Abimelech, and Jephthah have two each. All together these cycles have eight climaxes. But the Samson cycle has nine all by itself.
5. See J. Cheryl Exum, “Literary Patterns in the Samson Saga: An Investigation of Rhetorical Style in Biblical Prose” (Ph.D. diss.; Columbia University, 1976), 83; idem, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13,” JBL 99 (1980): 43–59, esp. 44–45.
6. See D. M. Howard Jr., “Philistines,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. J. Hoerth et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 231–50.
7. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 163.
8. Familiar motifs and themes found throughout Israel’s literary corpus occur in the Samson narrative. See J. L. Crenshaw, Samson: A Secret Betrayed, a Vow Ignored (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1978), 20, 41–50.
9. It is important to remember that barrenness is one of the specific Deuteronomic curses for lack of covenantal fidelity to Yahweh (Deut. 28:18).
10. Block, Judges, Ruth, 396.
11. The phrase “and he will begin the deliverance of Israel” recalls the phrase concerning Tola in 10:1a, “Tola . . . rose to save [deliver] Israel” (10:1a). Whereas Tola apparently succeeded, Samson will only begin the process of deliverance. The delivering activities of Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, and David are yet future.
12. Technically Samson’s Nazirite status begins at his conception.
13. Often this expression describes a prophet (cf. Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 9:6–10; 1 Kings 12:22).
14. Boling, Judges, 220.
15. Block, Judges, Ruth, 407.
16. The answer “I am” in such a theophanic context is reminiscent of Ex. 3:14.
17. The mentioning of the prohibition against haircutting is also lacking in the Lord’s answer here, as it was in the explanation of Manoah’s wife to her husband (13:6–7). Is it because Manoah’s wife speaks better than she knows? There is a tightening of the dietary restrictions concerning the consumption of the product of the vine, but this is only in closer agreement with the Nazirite restriction.
18. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 214 n. 304.
19. Ibid., 218.
20. For a detailed comparison of the sacrifices of Gideon and Manoah, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 410–16; Webb, The Book of the Judges, 164–68; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 218–19.
21. See Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomoist, 181–87.
22. This sets a precedent for Samson’s more flagrant violations of Yahweh’s grace. See Klein, Triumph of Irony, 122.
23. Ibid., 124.
24. Theologically correct (Ex. 33:20; Isa. 6:1–5), but logically incorrect.
26. Exum, “Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13,” 57.
27. Mahaneh Dan mentioned in 13:25 and 18:12 is problematic. The location of Mahaneh Dan in 18:12 is specifically west of Kiriath Jearim in Judah. It may be that there were two specific places called Mahaneh Dan, one west of Kiriath Jearim and the other between Zorah and Eshtaol, a general enclave wherein were settled the remnants of the tribe of Dan (subsequent to the migration of Judg. 18). It is also possible that the reference in 13:25a is not a proper name but simply a reference to “a Danite camp between Zorah and Eshtaol.” See O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 215 n. 307.
28. Compare also how the theophany in the Gideon account raised reader expectations.
29. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 116.
30. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 214.
31. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 118.
32. Alternatively, one could understand the paralleled accounts to contain three episodes (14:1–4, 5–9, 10–20) parallel to three others (15:1–3, 4–8, 9–19).
33. The table generally follows the discussions of C. Exum, “Aspects of Symmetry and Balance in the Samson Saga,” JSOT 19 (1981): 3–29; and Webb, The Book of the Judges, 163–64.
34. O’Connell rejects any parallels between chapters 14 and 15. While the parallels are not identical, there seems, in my opinion, to be some basic parallels between the episodes.
35. Timnah has been identified with Tell Batash in the Sorek Valley, west of Beth Shemesh.
36. See Klein, Triumph of Irony, 125.
37. The Israelites were not the only ones in the ancient Near East to practice circumcision, but their practice was different in that it was tied to the covenant (Gen. 17). Unfortunately, there is nothing in the text that indicates that Samson’s parents were remotely interested in covenantal issues.
38. Compare Samson’s characterization with that of the “fool” (kesîl) in Proverbs. In particular, note how the fool brings sorrow to his father and mother (Prov. 10:1; 17:21), bitterness (17:25), and calamity (19:13). He has little regard for them (15:20). See also 10:23; 13:20; 14:7; 17:12; 18:6; 29:11.
39. Block, Judges, Ruth, 424.
40. Cf. the much later example in John 2:1–11.
41. The most common types of pottery found by archaeologists in Philistine settlements is the strainer-spout “beer jug.” See T. Dothan and M. Dothan, People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 90, 134.
42. Cf. the use of the number “thirty” in the power contexts of Jair (10:3–5), Ibzan (12:8–10), and Abdon (12:13–15). Cf. also David’s “thirty” men, warriors of great exploits (2 Sam. 23:13–39; 1 Chron. 11:15).
43. Long robes or capes and tunics. See M. Görg, “Zu den Kleiderbezeichnungen in Ri 14, 12f,” BN 68 (1993), 5–9.
44. Cf. the similar threat of Ephraimites to Jephthah (12:1).
45. Heifers were not normally used for plowing; so the thirty have not played fair. See H. Wolf, “Judges,” EBC, 3:470.
46. Although Samson is gifted with the empowerment of the Spirit of Yahweh, it is clear from the contexts that he misuses this special empowerment for his own ends again and again.
47. Apparently he hoped to conceal his actions by going such a long distance from Timnah.
48. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 188.
49. The mention that this happens at the time of the wheat harvest (i.e., May–June) is anticipatory of the burning of the grain that will take place later in the story.
50. Boling explains this as “the ancient counterpart of the box of chocolates” (Judges, 234). Note also the use of a young goat by Judah as payment to the “prostitute,” Tamar, in Gen. 38:17–20, as observed by Moore, Judges, 340.
51. Boling, Judges, 235.
52. Wolf suggests that this may be evidence of a visit-type marriage, in which the wife would stay in her father’s house and be visited periodically by her husband (“Judges,” 470–71). He appears to follow de Vaux (Ancient Israel, 28–29), based on a Middle Assyrian law that describes this (see M. Roth, “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” COS, 2.132, law A §27). However, the context of Samson’s departure in rage (14:19) and the actions and comments of the woman’s father (14:20; 15:2) suggest that Samson’s return was not expected.
53. Block argues that these are jackals (as in Ps. 63:10; Lam. 5:18; Ezek. 13:4) (Judges, Ruth, 441 n. 368). See also Boling, Judges, 235; Soggin, Judges, 246.
54. Hence the earlier mention of the wheat harvest (15:1).
55. For the structure of this verse, see D. N. Freedman, “A Note on Judges 15, 5,” Bib 52 (1971): 535.
56. The destruction of all these food items, esp. the very basic commodity of wheat grain, had significant implications for an ancient dry-farming society that lived so often on the edge of hunger, where rationing was a common part of life. The potential for famine and death was quite serious.
57. By referring to him as “the son-in-law of the Timnite,” the Philistines recognize Samson’s status as the husband of the man’s daughter and discredit Samson’s father-in-law’s action in giving his wife to the second man.
58. Boling (Judges, 234) translates: “If this is the sort of thing you do, I swear I will be vindicated against you! But thereafter, I quit!”
59. “He left them a tangle of legs and thighs” (ibid., 235).
60. Note how the Lord purposely designated six cities of refuge in Israel in order to prevent the endless and senseless cycle of revenge killings (see Deut. 19:1–14).
61. Apparently, the tribe of Judah is under the Philistine oppression and is willingly content to accept this. The Judahite force is mustered not to support Samson, whom they obviously respect for his reputed strength (they do not attempt to tie him up without his consent); but it is mustered to capture Samson for the Philistines. The Judahites are simply interested in maintaining the status quo.
Interestingly, there are three thousand Judahites. Only one thousand Philistines are killed by Samson! The implication is clearly that the Judahites outnumber the Philistines, since even if Samson killed half of them and the other half escaped, there would have been only two thousand Philistines near Lehi. In fact, there seems to be no other reason in the narrative for giving the numeric size of the Judahite force. Thus in spite of numeric superiority, the Judahites are motivated purely by self-interest.
62. This reading is supported by a similar phrase in Ex. 8:14[Heb. 10] and the reading in the LXX: “A heap I heaped them”). It is preferred over the NIV (“I have made donkeys of them”), which relies on repointing the MT reading of ḥamōrātāyim as ḥamartîm (see Soggin Judges, 247; Boling, Judges, 239; Block, Judges, Ruth, 446; Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 333).
63. See Boling, Judges, 239. According to Boling, the line is also an example of archaic poetic progression used to convey impassioned speech (cf. Judg. 5:30 “one girl, two girls”).
64. Block, Judges, Ruth, 446.
65. See Boling, Judges, 239.
66. Ibid., 239.
67. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 216.
68. Ibid., 217.
69. Block, Judges, Ruth, 451.
70. Some scholars explain the name through an Arabic root dalla (to flirt, be flirtatious; e.g. Boling, Judges, 248). In my opinion, a preferable explanation with abundant attestations from the entire period of the Old Testament’s corpus is to relate the root dll to Akkadian dalālum (to praise, glorify), which is an element in a number of personal names—e.g., Ludlul-Sin, Sin-ludlul, Adalal-Sin, Adalal, Idlal-Dagan (Mari), Dilīl-Adad, Dilīl-Aššur, Dilīl-Issār). See CAD D, 46–47; and PNA, 1/2:384.
71. Note that Samson (“Little Sun”) will be reduced by Delilah (sounds like “night”).
72. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 217 n. 310.
73. Some scholars have argued that Delilah is an Israelite rather than a Philistine woman. This is usually based on three points: (1) Her name is thoroughly Semitic, (2) the geographic location is the Sorek Valley, and (3) she is the only paramor of Samson who is named. See J. M. Sasson, “Who Cut Samson’s Hair? (And Other Trifling Issues Raised by Judges 16),” Prooftexts 8 (1988): 334–35. None of these is compelling. Recent Philistine inscriptions demonstrate a strong tendency among them to adopt Semitic names; Philistine incursions up the Sorek Valley certainly make it possible for them to be living there; and the fact that she is named is a literary feature of the story, not an ethnic indicator.
74. This is a technical political title that connects the social organization of the five great Philistine cities on the southern coastal plain with an Aegean homeland (see Boling, Judges, 148).
75. These 5500 shekels would equal 550 times the average annual wage. Assuming a figure like $25,000 as an average annual wage today, the Philistine offer would be in the $15 million category. Eleven hundred shekels is the same amount of silver that Micah’s mother has in 17:2.
76. His specification of “fresh” and “undried” sinews/bowstrings means that once more he is trivializing his Nazirite vow.
77. This may imply that there were no Philistine survivors of this earlier incident.
78. J. Walton, V. Matthews, and M. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 269.
79. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 164.
80. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 138.
81. Contrast Judg. 3:12–30 above.
82. See Boling, Judges, 250.
83. E. L. Greenstein, “The Riddle of Samson,” Prooftexts 1/3 (1981): 237–60.
84. K. van der Toorn, “Mill, Millstone,” in ABD, 4:831–32. As van der Toorn points out, these were likely similar to the one discovered at Ebla, where sixteen grindstones were found in their original places.
85. Ibid., 831. Cf. the discussion of the upper millstone in 9:53, which was used by “a [certain] woman” to kill Abimelech.
86. Two other prominent Canaanite deities are now attested in Philistine inscriptions: “Asherah” and “Baal.” Dedicatory inscriptions to both deities have been found at Ekron.
87. According to Healey, this does not mean that the name was taken from the West Semitic word for “grain.” The word for “grain” probably comes from the name of the god and not vice versa. Also the etymology of the name from the word dāg “fish” is quite doubtful, although a sarcastic wordplay is not out of the question. For further discussion, see J. F. Healey, “Dagon,” in DDD, cols. 407–13.
88. Ironically, the Philistines are singing a victory song, when, had Samson delivered the Israelites, it would have been the Israelites singing a victory song.
89. As in other instances, the term zākar (to remember) is not the opposite of “to forget,” as if God has forgotten him. Rather, the verb means “to take note of, to act on behalf of” (see Block, Judges, Ruth, 467).
90. For the reflexive verbal usage, see Boling, Judges, 251.
91. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 225.
92. Block, Judges, Ruth, 468.
93. Contrast David in his encounter with Goliath, who is concerned about Yahweh’s name and reputation (1 Sam. 17).
94. A. Mazar, “A Philistine Temple at Tell Qasile,” BA 36 (1973): 43.
95. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 165.
96. Webb (ibid., 171) correctly notes that the two notices are symmetrical but not identical. He concludes from these statements that Samson’s judgeship began effectively at Ramath Lehi and concluded with his death at Gaza.
97. The much more godly Samuel will subdue the Philistines (1 Sam. 7).
98. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 224.
99. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 118.
100. See E. Browne, “Samson: Riddle and Paradox,” TBT 22 (1984): 161–67. Cf. also the oratorio Samson (1743) by the German-born composer George Frederic Handel.
101. B. Webb, “A Serious Reading of the Samson Story (Judges 13–16),” RTR 54 (1995): 110–20, esp. 116.
102. Ibid., 120.
103. Besides this single occurrence in the New Testament, Samson is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, with the possible exception of 1 Sam. 12:11, where there is textual confusion between the reading of the last named judge (LXXL and Syriac: Samson; MT and others: Samuel). For further discussion of this verse, see the introduction, p. 25.
104. Samson’s faith is seen in his trust in Yahweh to hear his prayer and strengthen him once more, even though Samson’s motives are only for personal vengeance. Yahweh answers the prayer in spite of Samson’s sinful motives, because he will vindicate and glorify his name and can even use a Samson to accomplish this.
105. Block, Judges, Ruth, 469.
106. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 118.
107. The voluntary emptying of the second person of the Godhead (Phil. 2).
108. It is also fruitful to contrast Samson with John the Baptist. Once again the similarities only heighten the contrasts.
1. Block, Judges, Ruth, 477.
2. The NIV’s translation of this line obscures the literary links back into the cycles section of the book. Therefore, I will use the literal translation throughout in order to facilitate the commentary.
3. M. K. Wilson, “As You Like It: The Idolatry of Micah and the Danites (Judges 17–18),” RTR 54 (1995): 73–85, esp. 74–76.
4. P. J. Achtemeier, “Gods Made with Hands: The New Testament and the Problem of Idolatry,” Ex Auditu 15 (1999): 50.
5. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 239–40.
6. Ibid., 240.
7. Lit., “taken.” The same verb will be used of the Danite action in 18:17 so that Micah’s “stealing” is anticipatory of the Danites’ “stealing.” The first conclusion moves from family sin to community idolatry to tribal apostasy.
8. See Klein, Triumph of Irony, 143–44.
9. See Block’s discussion, Judges, Ruth, 478–80.
10. In the ancient Near East, silver often took on magical connotations.
11. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 480 n. 19; Boling, Judges, 256; J. D. Martin, The Book of Judges (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975), 180. Cundall argues that the two words pesel ûmassēkâ reflect the manner of making an idol. The word pesel means the carving of the wood or stones by the craftsman, while pesel ûmassēkâ means the melting down of the metal and overlaying it on the carved sculpture (Cundall, Judges, 184).
12. The biblical teraphim appear to have been ancestor figurines that were most often used in divination, see K. van der Toorn and T. J. Lewis, “
,” ThWAT, 8:765–78.
13. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 150. While her discussion is helpful, she confuses the term massēkâ (found in Judg. 17–18) with the term maṣṣēbâ (not found in Judg. 17).
14. This is clear in their initial formulations in verses 4 and 5 and reinforced in 18:14, where the five Danites list the items in Micah’s house as ʾēpôd ûterāpîm ûpesel ûmassēkâ. In 18:17–18, in the description of the Danites’ theft, the pair pesel and massēkâ is split for rhetorical reasons: ʾet-happesel weʾet-hāʾēpôd weʾet-hatterāpîm weʾet-hammassēkâ.
15. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 150.
16. Cf. the golden calf incident (Ex. 32).
17. G. Yee, “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body,” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. G. A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 158.
18. The term “father” is used here as a title of honor by which Micah acknowledges his willingness to subordinate himself to and be dependent on the Levite in spiritual matters. This is ironic in that the Levite is described as a naʿar (“boy, youth”) but is made a “father” by Micah’s perversion of the God-ordained priestly ministry.
19. P. Satterthwaite, “ ‘No King in Israel’: Narrative Criticism and Judges 17–21,” TynBul 44 (1993): 75–88, esp. 78.
20. Boling, Judges, 263. Perhaps his Kohathite connection gives him away (cf. the accent or dialect distinctions in the Shibboleth incident, 12:1–6).
21. Thus indirectly the Levite’s words are the cause or, at least, the legitimation of the slaughter. Ironically, in the second conclusion below, another Levite’s words will be the cause for the civil war’s great slaughter.
22. The meaning of two clauses of the Hebrew text of Judg. 18:7 are uncertain (see NIV text notes). For the most recent discussion, see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 477–80.
23. Ibid., 237.
24. The number “six hundred” is anticipatory of the six hundred men that make up the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin in 20:47 (cf. the six hundred Philistines killed by Shamgar, 3:31).
25. Ironically, in their threat to kill Micah, the Danites inadvertently threaten to do the punishment that the Deuteronomic law demanded for the crime of idolatry.
26. Cf. Num. 13:21.
27. For the archaeological context, see A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994).
28. In an effort to prevent desecration of the name of Moses, later scribes modified the name slightly, making it read “Manasseh” (see NIV text note).
29. For Shiloh, see I. Finkelstein, ed., Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 10; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology, 1993).
30. Three times at the end of ch. 18 (18:24, 27, 31) the text states that the cult objects that the Danites place in their shrine at Dan are man-made, obviously condemning the Danite shrine as false in every respect.
1. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 196.
2. S. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration,” CBQ 44 (1982): 365–78, esp. 366–67; Block, Judges, Ruth, 515.
3. The two repetitions at the center of the double conclusion (i.e., 18:1a and 19:1a) are intrinsically bound together by a chiasm, ʾên melek versus melek ʾên respectively.
4. Wilson, “As You Like It,” 73–85, esp. 74–76.
5. D. M. Hudson, “Living in a Land of Epithets: Anonymity in Judges 19–21,” JSOT 62 (1994): 49–66, esp. 59–65.
6. Block, Judges, Ruth, 517.
7. This analysis is based upon my own observations in connection with those of J. P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 33–45, esp. 40–45.
8. The MT’s phrase is problematic. In ancient Near Eastern culture, it is doubtful that she would have played the prostitute and then gone home to her father. It is possible that the phrase is meant to be understood figuratively (i.e., the concubine plays the harlot by walking out on her husband—this seems to be the NIV’s rationale). However, the phrase is not used with this nuance elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The phrase znh ʿl does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The ancient versions, however, preserve a different reading. LXXA reads: ōrgisthē autō, “she was angry with him,” and Targum Jonathan reads: wbsrt ʿlwhy, “she despised him.” As Block argues, it is best to understand the MT’s znh either as a scribal error for znḥ, “to reject, detest,” or, more likely, to retain the Hebrew and recognize a second root, znh, meaning “to be angry, quarrel.” See Block, Judges, Ruth, 523.
9. Fokkelman correctly observes that much space is given to enjoying hospitality—C, D, and D′—and at first the reader wonders what all this trivial hospitality has to do with the crime and its horrors. The answer is that the story signifies how much the Levite is attached to “carousing” (yṭb lb and synonyms) and that such hedonism and materialism lead to a situation in which throwing women out as a sexual prey for the rabble seems right to the Levite. See Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 43.
10. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20,” 366–67. See also S. Lasine, “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World,” JSOT 29 (1984): 56–57 n. 34.
11. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 249.
12. This term often has negative, even pejorative connotations.
13. The term ʿābar can mean not only “to cross over, pass over, traverse,” but also “to violate (a commandment or the covenant)” (cf. Judg. 2:20). This may be subtly anticipatory of the “violation” that will take place in Gibeah. The term sûr can also have moral connotations and may hint at the moral “turning aside” that takes place in Gibeah.
14. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 44.
15. It is only about 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) between Bethlehem and Jerusalem (Jebus) and only another 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) or 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) between Jerusalem (Jebus) and Gibeah, depending on the location of ancient Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl or modern Jabaʿ respectively). The total distance is well within the average distance that could be traversed in a day; but with the late start, the three would have had to travel at a much faster rate and must have been quite tired when they arrived in Gibeah.
16. For a discussion of the motif of “night as danger,” see W. W. Fields, “The Motif ‘Night As Danger’ Associated with Three Biblical Destruction Narratives,” in “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 17–32, esp. 21–32.
17. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 250.
18. The LXX reads: “to my house,” not “to the house of the Lord.” If the MT’s “to the house of the Lord” is accepted, then this would convey the Levite’s attempt to further legitimate himself to the Ephraimite old man. However, it is more likely that the LXX preserves the better reading here (as most modern versions translate). For a discussion see O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 483.
19. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 262 n. 32.
20. Lasine, “Guest and Host in Judges 19,” 40. Also see D. I. Block, “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature: A Study of Judges 19,” WTJ 52 (1990): 325–41.
21. The meaning of the phrase is still uncertain. See T. J. Lewis, “Belial,” ABD, 1:654–56; S. D. Sperling, “Belial,” DDD, cols. 322–27.
22. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 189.
23. The NIV’s “you can use them” is a poor translation of the verb ʿinnâ (to humiliate, do violence to), which in such a context as this can have the technical nuance of “rape.” Cf. Gen. 34:2; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11.
24. Cf. the double conclusion’s refrain (lit.): “Every man did what was right in his own eyes”; also the initial cyclical component: “The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord” (e.g., 2:11).
25. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 189.
26. The narrator’s choice of term here is powerful.
27. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 190.
28. Both verses 25 and 29 use the verb ḥzq (seize) to emphasize the callousness of the Levite.
29. See Lasine’s discussion of the 1 Sam. 11 passage (“Guest and Host in Judges 19,” 52–56).
30. E.g., D. S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1955). Bailey argues that the men of Sodom (and Gibeah) were not wanting intercourse with Lot’s guests, but simply credentials by which to judge that the strangers posed no threat to the town and that the host and the men evince an improper manner of inhospitality.
31. J. G. Taylor, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” Themelios 21/1 (1995): 4–9, esp. 5.
32. For the excellent discussion of homosexuality, see ibid., 4–9.
33. I recognize that feminist literary criticism is remarkably pluralistic and diverse. It is not monolithic in the interpretation of this passage. Nonetheless, it is accurate to say that this is the primary approach to the passage by most feminist interpreters.
34. P. Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 65.
35. J. Cheryl Exum, “Feminist Criticism: Whose Interests Are Being Served?” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. G. A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 65–90, esp. 83–88.
36. Ibid., 84.
37. Ibid., 87.
38. Interestingly, Fewell argues for the versional reading: “The young woman ‘resists’ him (reading zanach instead of zanah) . . .” (“Judges,” 75).
39. Exum, “Feminist Criticism,” 84.
40. Ibid., 85.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. All of us who interpret the text of the Scriptures need to be aware of how we too often do this.
44. Ibid., 67, esp. n. 4.
45. I would like to quote one final example of how Exum violates the integrity of the text of the book of Judges. She states: “One of the ways men deny their responsibility for violence is by scapegoating women, blaming women for violence of which they are the victims. We can see this tactic at work in the texts we have examined. But the violence unleashed against Bat-shever is not her fault, any more than it was Bat-jiftah’s fault (as Jephthah implies) that she became the sacrificial victim, or the Timnite woman’s fault that the Philistines retaliated against her when Samson burned their fields, or Delilah’s fault that Samson was captured by the Philistines (he didn’t have to tell her his secret). Attention to the gender politics of Judges enables us to expose the phenomenon of scapegoating women for what it is: a strategy patriarchy uses to avoid facing and having to deal with its own violent legacy” (ibid., 87).
According to the text of Judges, Jephthah does blame his daughter when it is clearly not her fault but his. And he wrongly and ignorantly carries out his vow on this innocent victim. But other than this case, Exum’s statements are patently inaccurate to what the text says. As I have argued above, the text does not fault the concubine; it blames the men of Gibeah, the Levite, and the host. The Philistines burn Samson’s wife because of what her father-in-law did (15:6); the text does not fault her. The text paints a vivid portrait of Samson’s foolish handling of Delilah’s attempts to get the information concerning his strength. The text does paint Delilah guilty of taking the bribe and betraying Samson; but it is ultimately Samson’s fault for telling Delilah, and he suffers the consequences for the flippant revelation of his special spiritual giftedness and status with Yahweh. Thus, it is Exum who has made the text a scapegoat rather than the text scapegoating the women in it. An interpretation that violates the integrity of the text is an invalid interpretation, whether androcentric or otherwise.
46. K. Stone, “Gender and Homosexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame,” JSOT 67 (1995): 91–103.
47. Block, Judges, Ruth, 543.
48. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 44 n. 20.
49. Richard N. Ostling, “Era’s New Dividing Line,” Chicago Tribune (July 21, 2000): sec. 2, p. 8.
50. Ibid.
51. Boling, Judges, 275.
52. The number given is 400,000 soldiers armed with swords, which is huge even by modern standards. This could be hyperbole stressing the massive number, or perhaps the term ʾelep should be understood as unit or contingent (hence 400 units or contingents)—still a considerable number compared to the Benjamites. Whatever the case, the fact that this callous, self-interested Levite is able to produce this kind of response is amazingly paradoxical—a larger response than any of the major/cyclical judges!
53. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 191.
54. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 200–202.
55. Niditch, “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20,” 377.
56. For some of the literary aspects of the narrative, see E. J. Revell, “The Battle with Benjamin (Judges xx 29–48) and Hebrew Narrative Techniques,” VT 35 (1985): 417–33; P. E. Satterthwaite, “Narrative Artistry in the Composition of Judges xx 29ff.,” VT 42 (1992): 80–89.
57. Yahweh puts Judah in the van, appropriately so, since the ravished concubine is a Judahite (Webb, The Book of the Judges, 193).
58. Not to be confused with a later Phinehas the son of Eli (1 Sam 1–4).
59. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 179. Cf. the “Cuthean Legend,” in which Naram-Sin is defeated three times before the fourth inquiry is “an affirmative yes.”
60. Note that out of the seven “sins” listed that God “hates,” at least three apply to slanderous gossip. Divorce is not mentioned in this list in Proverbs.
61. Webb, The Book of the Judges, 195.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 260.
65. Not the elders of a tribe, as in the story of Jephthah, but of the entire nation.
66. The detailed description of the festival’s location at Shiloh may indicate that this passage was written at a time when Shiloh was in ruins, having been destroyed in the connection with the battle of Aphek (1 Sam. 4:1–11).
67. Block, Judges, Ruth, 580–81. He observes that the mention of the girls dancing and the emphasis on the vineyards may indicate a grape-harvest festival characterized by revelry, music, and dance—indicators of a Canaanized society.
68. The verb ḥṭp, translated “seize” in the NIV, is a verb that appears in only one other place in the Old Testament (Ps. 10:9). It occurs twice in that verse, describing a wicked and violent man’s ambush of an innocent person and comparing it to that of a lion pouncing on its prey to devour it.
69. Families, esp. brothers, were responsible for demanding legal satisfaction in cases of a girl’s being abducted (Gen. 34:7–31; 2 Sam. 13:20–38).
70. In this verse the verb is gzl, a violent action reflected in its use in 9:25 to describe highway robbery.
71. Cf. Deut. 13:12–18.
72. The book of Lamentations produces this same reading experience.
73. Block, Judges, Ruth, 584.
74. Ibid., 586.
75. Ibid., 585.
1. See R. L. Hubbard Jr., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 23. Luter pursues this possibility (see Luter, “Ruth,” in A. B. Luter and B. C. Davis, God Behind the Seen: Expositions of the Books of Ruth and Esther [Expositor’s Guide to the Historical Books; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 14–15). See also A. B. Luter and R. O. Rigsby, “An Alternative Symmetrical Structuring of Ruth, with Implications for the Dating and Purpose Questions,” JETS 39 (1996): 15–28. But this is doubtful, see the discussion in F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC 9; Dallas: Word, 1996), 25–35.
2. A. J. Beldstein, “Female Companionships: If the Book of Ruth Were Written by a Woman . . .,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 116–35.
3. The opening paragraph and the concluding episode and genealogy obviously represent traditional male perspectives. See R. Bauckham, “The Book of Ruth and the Possibility of a Feminist Canonical Hermeneutic,” BibInt 5 (1997): 29–45.
4. While there were literate females throughout the ancient Near East, the bulk of writers through the history of the region were males. Certainly the scribes in any redactional stage or copyists were males. See C. Meyers, “Returning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth,” in A Feminist Companion to Ruth, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 89.
5. For example, the linguistic evidence of Aramaisms is not particularly convincing; see P. T. Nash, “Ruth: An Exercise in Israelite Political Correctness or a Call to Proper Conversion?” in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Åhlstrom, ed. H. G. Åhlstrom and L. K. Handy (JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 347–54.
6. For thorough recent discussions, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 18–30 (slightly favoring an early postexilic date); and Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 23–35 (favoring a preexilic date). Block argues at length for a late preexilic date, specifically by a northern author during the days of Josiah (Judges, Ruth, 590–98), while E. Zenger argues for a second-century B.C. date in the time of the Hasmoneans (Das Buch Ruth [ZBAT 8; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986], 28).
7. The book of Proverbs (esp. in Prov. 1–9) develops a contrast between two feminine personifications: “lady wisdom” and the “foolish woman” (ʾēšet kesîlût), the “prostitute” (zônâ), or the “strange woman” (ʾiššâ zārâ). Thus Ruth stands in clear contrast to these personifications of foolishness/folly.
8. For further discussion, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 6–7.
9. E. F. Campbell Jr., Ruth (AB 7; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 35–36.
10. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 7–9; Campbell, Ruth, 34–35. The Davidic genealogy at the end of Ruth perhaps served as an impetus in this “promotion.”
11. See the extended discussions of Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 8–23; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 10–16.
12. See among others, Campbell, Ruth, 14–18; J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folkorist Interpretation, 2d ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 179–83; and A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 107–10.
13. The genealogy, then, is the work of the narrator, as spokesman for the Israelite narrative tradition, viewing the story of Ruth and putting it in the proper context in that narrative tradition. It is a kind of prologue and epilogue rolled into one, providing material that surrounds the story. This does not mean, however, that it is a late addition (Berlin, Poetics, 110).
14. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 19–20.
15. See most recently, G. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); R. Routledge, “Ḥesed As Obligation: A Re-examination,” TynBul 46 (1995): 179–96; D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:211–18.
16. It is clear that acts of ḥesed can precede the establishment of a covenant (berît) and do not require the establishment of a covenant. However, the establishment of a covenant enhances the facilitation of acts of ḥesed because the covenant secures the continuation of mutual acts of ḥesed. The existence of a covenant assures the permanence of ḥesed.
17. Hence its semantic overlap with terms like raḥamîm (maternal compassion). True ḥesed should act out of pure motives. See A. Jepsen, “Gnade und Barmherzigkeit im Alt Testament,” Kerygma and Dogma 7 (1961): 266. Contra K. D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 73.
18. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed, 24, 44–45.
19. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible, 192.
20. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed, 233–34.
21. E. F. Campbell Jr., “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Ḥesed () and Change,” Austin Seminary Bulletin 105 (1990): 64–74, esp. 67.
22. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible, 267.
23. Campbell, “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Ḥesed () and Change,” 69–70.
24. Routledge, “Ḥesed As Obligation: A Re-examination,” 179–96.
25. Ibid., 182.
26. The general consensus of scholars is that the reference is to Yahweh’s, not Boaz’s, ḥesed. See, e.g., Hubbard The Book of Ruth, 50–51, 186, 212–13; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 134–36; Block, Judges, Ruth, 611, 672–73.
27. The possibility of deliberate ambiguity (so that both Yahweh and Boaz can be inferred) should be considered. Cf. the case with Othniel in Judg. 3:9 (see commentary above). While Sakenfeld concludes that the reference is to Yahweh’s, not Boaz’s, ḥesed, it is interesting that she closes her discussion by asking whether there just might be deliberate ambiguity here (The Meaning of Ḥesed, 106). See also Campbell, “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Ḥesed () and Change,” 67.
28. See Sasson, Ruth, 197–221; W. Humphreys, “Novella,” in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature, ed. G. Coats (JSOTSup 35; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 82–96; Campbell, Ruth, 4–10; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 47–48; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 30–47.
29. There are short stories in the extant literature of the ancient Near East; but none in which the major characters are women, especially a foreign woman, with familial and societal issues playing such important roles.
30. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 30–47.
31. Ibid., 52. Some scholars have claimed that the book of Ruth is focused on the significance of ḥesed.
32. A. Berlin points out many of these connections (“Big Theme, Little Book,” BRev 12 [1996]: 40–43, 47–48).
33. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 42; M. D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 207–10. Block has recently argued that the book is an edifying short story functioning as an apology to the northern Israelites for the Davidic dynasty, legitimating Josiah’s kingship (Judges, Ruth, 599–616).
34. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 17.
35. B. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual 7 (1978): 23–49, esp. 24–25.
36. J. M. Sasson, “Ruth,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987), 321.
37. R. L. Hubbard Jr., “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution,” BBR 1 (1991): 3–19.
38. See the discussion of Israelite social structures in the introduction to the book of Judges, pp. 25–28.
39. Mullen feels that the order of kinship by which the gōʾēl was determined is given in Lev. 25:48–49. See E. T. Mullen Jr., “Gōʾēl” in DDD, cols. 706–8.
40. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 51.
41. Mullen, “Gōʾēl,” col. 706.
42. J. Unterman, “The Social-Legal Origin for the Image of God as Redeemer 
of Israel,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 399–405.
43. While there may have been a social hierarchy (from top to bottom): gēr (foreigner) → tôšāb (temporary resident) → śākîr (hired worker) → ʿebed (slave), since Yahweh alone owned the land, the Israelites are ironically likened to “foreigner” (gēr) and “temporary resident” (tôšāb) (Lev. 25:23–24). See R. Rendtorff, “The Gēr in the Priestly Laws of the Pentateuch,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. M. G. Brett (Biblical Interpretation Series 19; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 77–87, esp. 79.
44. Brichto observes: “The gōʾēl was not merely a close-kinsman obligated to blood-vengeance or privileged to redeem property. The gōʾēl is he who redeems the dead from the danger of his afterlife by continuing his line.” See H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973): 1–54, esp. 21.
45. Scholars usually refer to the marriage of Boaz and Ruth as a levirate marriage. However, Hubbard (The Book of Ruth, 50–51, 57) argues for a distinction between the levirate (yā-bam) and “redemption” (geʾullâ) marriages. But there seems to me to be clear overlap with the issue being family or clan wholeness and continuity.
46. The very conditional framing of the laws of the gōʾēl also indicate that volition is involved. It is in this volitional aspect of the gōʾēl that the concept of ḥesed comes into play.
47. Hubbard, “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel,” 11–12.
48. Interestingly, in Isaiah, gōʾēl refers exclusively to Yahweh.
49. Often these three passages are thought to come from different sources and/or traditions and are arranged chronologically by commentator preferences. For a discussion and evaluation, see R. Westbrook, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité 24 (1977): 65–87, esp. 65–68; idem, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 69–89. Variations of this type of marriage are found in other ancient Near Eastern cultures.
50. Westbrook, Property and the Family, 73. He concludes that all three biblical sources reflect an institution with this single legal object.
51. Ibid.
52. For further discussion of the detailed legal aspects of the levirate, see K. L. Younger Jr., “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” JANES 26 (1998): 128–31.
53. See Westbrook, “Redemption of Land,” Israel Law Review 6 (1971): 371; H. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife,” 15–16.
54. Westbrook, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” 77.
55. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 50–51, 57.
56. In contrast to segmented genealogies (i.e., the “family tree” genealogies).
57. R. R. Wilson, Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 57–61.
58. R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1977), 133–34.
59. Cf. the New Testament situation in the impositional structure of Matthew’s genealogy of Christ.
60. In Gen. 5 and 11, there are exactly ten generations. These also evince examples of “telescoping” or “gapping” of names (e.g., compare 1 Chron. 6:3–14; Ezra 7:1–5). The didactic function of genealogies is also observable in Gen. 5 and 11. See T. D. Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis,” TynBul 44 (1993): 261–67.
61. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 14–16.
1. See Bush’s discussion of the structural parameters (Ruth, Esther, 59–60).
2. Hubbard states: “While certainty eludes us, the Ruth story most likely falls between Ehud and Jephthah since, except for Eglon, Israel dominated Moab” (The Book of Ruth, 84). But the book supplies no real indication or hint within the story of a precise date, nor any evidence that this is of concern to the meaning of the book.
3. Interestingly, the ideal judge, Othniel, was also a Judahite like David. See commentary on Judges 3:7–11.
4. For a discussion of the literary links between these passages, see K. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 40–41.
5. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 67. For a detailed evaluation of the rabbinic excesses, see Campbell, Ruth, 58–59.
6. E.g., one writer states: “Suffering happens; there is no underlying reason given. The deaths are reported, not explained.” See J. C. Howell, “Ruth 1:1–8,” Int 51 (1997): 281–84, esp. 282.
7. And Deuteronomy, or parts of it, may be earlier than typically thought.
8. Note the concise remarks of Sasson, “Ruth,” 322.
9. See the discussion in Block, Judges, Ruth, 624–27.
10. Moab could fare better in drought years than Judah due to evaporation from the Dead Sea, as demonstrated by actual rainfall measurements during the first half of the twentieth century. See D. Ashbel, “There Was a Famine in the Land . . . (Ruth 1:1),” Yediot 29 (1965), 221–26 (in Hebrew).
11. A. Berlin, Poetics, 103: “Had Ruth been a Judahite, there would have been nothing remarkable in her actions.”
12. The phrase “man from Bethlehem in Judah” also recalls the “young Levite from Bethlehem in Judah who lived (gûr) with Micah in Ephraim” (Judg. 17:7–11). See Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth,” 25.
13. Although as a number of commentators observe this does not mean that there was nothing but utter hatred and constant war between the two. There were periods of peace and coexistence.
14. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 87. Ironically, the Israelite family goes to live in Moab and suffers the deaths of all of the males, Ruth, the Moabitess, goes to live in Judah and has the pleasure of giving birth to a son.
15. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 624–27, Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 87 nn. 19, 22, see also note 10.
16. Block comments concerning Naomi’s name: “This may be an abbreviated name, missing the theophoric element and thereby suppressing the role of God” (Judges, Ruth, 625). But it is common for biblical female personal names to lack theophoric elements, so it is highly questionable that there is any “suppressing of the role of God” in her name.
17. The Ugaritic personal name ki-li-ia-nu (alphabetic equivalent klyn) is most likely Hurrian and thus a false lead to explicating the unrelated Hebrew kilyôn. See S. C. Layton, “Leaves from an Onomastician’s Notebook,” ZAW 108 (1996): 608–20, esp. 615–20. See also R. Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (OLA 28; Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 13, 80, 113, 130.
18. It is preposterous to suggest that parents would name their children “sickly one” or “destruction.” Compare comments on the name of Cushan-Rishathaim in Judg. 3:8–10.
19. See S. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 215–16.
20. N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Israel (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979), 269. The description of David in 1 Sam. 17:12 as “the son of an Ephrathite . . . from Bethlehem in Judah” adds significance to the coda’s genealogy in Ruth 4:18–22.
21. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 60.
22. Ibid., 60.
23. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 93.
24. The meaning of the name is uncertain. The meaning of “nape (of the neck)” is doubtful. Equally problematic are the meanings “cloudy” or “scented.” See Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 94 n. 14.
25. The meaning of her name is also uncertain. See Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 94 n. 15; Block, Judges, Ruth, 628. The attempt to explain Ruth’s name from a root meaning “friend” is doubtful. Perhaps a derivation from the root rwh (to soak, irrigate, refresh), hence “refreshment, satiation” is possible. But Ruth will serve as the bridge from Naomi to Boaz, from the past to the future.
26. However, this is hardly a favorable wording; nor is the context, which mentions Balaam (Deut. 23:4–5) and forbids treaties with them (23:6). The prohibition against treaties with the Moabites is parallel to the prohibition against treaties with the people in the land (i.e., the Canaanites).
27. The Targum (1:4–5) explicitly attributes the deaths of the two sons to the sin of marrying Moabites. The Midrash (Ruth Rabbah 2.10) relates the deaths to the earlier sin of leaving Judah. But the biblical text is silent on this issue.
28. There are also important differences between Job and Naomi. Job’s integrity is immediately and explicitly set forth, whereas Naomi’s is only established over the course of the book. The divine reason for Job’s trials is explicitly stated, whereas the divine reason for Naomi’s is only inferred. The reactions of the two to the trials is different (at least as far as the prologue of Job is concerned).
29. That potential tragedy is implicit in her angry outcries (1:11–13, 20–21) and explicit in the joyous exclamation of her neighbors (4:14–15), who rejoice that the newborn will “renew [her] life and sustain [her] in [her] old age.” In short, as in Lev. 25, here the gōʾēl delivers an unfortunate Israelite, not from loss of land or lengthy servitude, but from annihilation.
30. See Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 96–97; and P. S. Hiebert, “Whence Shall Help Come to Me?: The Biblical Widow,” in Gender and Difference, ed. by P. L. Day (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 134–37.
31. H. A. Hoffner Jr., “
,” TDOT, 1:290.
32. Hubbard states: “If a woman is ‘saved through childbirth’ (1 Tim. 2:15; cf. Rachel’s cry, Gen. 30:1), Naomi is lost. With Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth she suffers the painful shame of childlessness” (The Book of Ruth, 97).
33. P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 167–68.
34. The NIV inverts the clauses of verse 6 and obscures this chiasm.
35. Note that in the Hebrew text, the mention of the Lord’s providing food comes after the decision to return to Moab in a kî (for) clause.
36. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 60.
37. But the mention here implicitly argues for his involvement earlier, an involvement that Naomi perceives (1:13b2—“the Lord’s hand has gone out against me!”). See discussion below.
38. Berlin (“Big Theme, Little Book,” 43) points out “in chapter 1 the repetition of the root šûb ‘return’ twelve times as Naomi bids her daughters-in-law return to their families in Moab and as she returns to Judah with Ruth. Technically, Ruth cannot return to Bethlehem, since the Moabite woman has never been there. Her return is really Naomi’s return.”
39. See Bush for a full explanation (Ruth, Esther, 72). The analysis here is indebted to his observations.
40. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth,” 26; Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 169; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 75.
41. Campbell, Ruth, 82.
42. Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth,” 27–28.
43. Bush correctly observes the nature of the questions in the dialogues (Ruth, Esther, 77–78). See also R. T. Hyman, “Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth,” USQR 39 (1984): 190.
44. The NIV does not translate the particle kî as causal, but from the logic of the argument it seems appropriate.
45. Again, the NIV does not translate the particle kî.
46. On the interpretation of this clause, see the discussions of Hubbard (The Book of Ruth, 112) and Campbell (Ruth, 70–71).
47. With this statement, Naomi is implicitly acknowledging Yahweh’s sovereign activity in the earlier tragedies: famine, exile, bereavement, childlessness, etc.
48. Berlin, Poetics, 85.
49. Block interprets this as an indication that Naomi is acknowledging the existence of the Moabite god(s) and is therefore an evidence of her lack of orthodoxy (Judges, Ruth, 638–39). But this seems to be taking the phrase too literally. Literarily, the phrase “back to her people and her gods” is part of the foil. In contrast to Orpah, Ruth will choose the God of Israel. The phrase can be just as easily understood as a tacit recognition that in turning back to Moab this automatically meant that Orpah would be back in a society that worshiped these gods, and that’s all.
50. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 82.
51. The participle expresses durative action in past time, stressing the continuous nature of Ruth’s resolve, a nuance difficult to bring out in translation. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 83.
52. Block comments: “Although some would interpret Ruth’s declaration as a sign of conversion, it is better viewed as an affirmation of a transfer of membership from the people of Moab to Israel and of allegiance from Chemosh to Yahweh. How much she knew about the implications of claiming Yahweh as one’s God we do not know. She had indeed been observing Naomi for more than a decade, but from what we have seen of her in this chapter she hardly qualified to be a missionary of orthodox Yahwistic faith and theology. But this is a start, a noble beginning” (Judges, Ruth, 641). Not only is this again unduly harsh on Naomi; it is far too demanding on Ruth. That Ruth is a believer in Yahweh is confirmed by her actions; in this, with her confession, she is analogous to Rahab with her confession and confirming actions (Josh. 2; cf. James 2).
53. The root and meaning of this term is uncertain. It can be taken to express agitation and consternation, or delighted excitement. The context determines the meaning, which, in this case, seems to make the latter preferable (cf. 1 Sam. 4:5; 1 Kings 1:45).
54. See B. Jongeling, “HZʾT NʿMY (Ruth 1:19),” VT 28 (1978): 474–77.
55. The reason Naomi gives for calling herself Mara instead of Naomi is strikingly parallel to the reasons she gave in verse 13 for refusing Ruth and Orpah’s announced intention to accompany her to Judah: “[Life] is more bitter for me than for you.”
56. Naomi uses the divine name šadday as a synonym for Yahweh. The meaning of this name is still obscure. English translations have generally followed the LXX and the Vulgate in translating the word “the Almighty.” The name appears mostly in passages involving blessing and cursing, frequently in contexts expressing judgment (cf. Job 5:17; Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15).
57. Bush, Ruth Esther, 83.
58. It seems that Naomi may be drawing from the Song of Moses that documents some of Yahweh’s promised curses on the Israelites when they do not follow him, but worthless idols instead. Deut. 32:23 and esp. 24a state:
“I [Yahweh] will heap disasters upon them:
spend my arrows against them:
wasting hunger [famine],
burning consumption,
bitter [merîrî] pestilence.” (NRSV)
59. Ibid., 94.
60. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 96.
61. D. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth,” JBL 89 (1970): 27–37, esp. 30.
62. On some of these see Howell, “Ruth 1:1–8,” 281–84.
63. With an ironic twist this will definitely happen for Ruth. Yahweh will fulfill Naomi’s invocation in his name. We are never told what happens to Orpah.
64. D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, “ ‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth,” JSOT 40 (1988): 99–108, esp. 100.
1. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 99.
2. It seems preferable to follow the majority of scholars and read here the Qere môdaʿ (relative).
3. “A real, substantial man of character” might capture the nuance here.
4. Block defines the phrase: “noble with respect to character” (Judges, Ruth, 651).
5. For use of this term in the social structure of ancient Israel, see the discussion in the introduction to the book of Judges.
6. See Sasson, Ruth, 41; Campbell, Ruth, 90–91.
7. See, e.g., Job 24:3, 21; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Jer. 7:6.
8. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 104.
9. See ibid., 109–11.
10. Berlin, Poetics, 93–94.
11. This is Bush’s suggested translation of wehinnēh (Ruth, Esther, 113).
12. The term is naʿar (lit., young man), but the term is used in biblical and extrabiblical texts of a foreman or overseer.
13. The choice of the word nʿrh (young woman) is a natural means of inquiry. It implies Ruth’s youth vis-à-vis Boaz.
14. For the syntax of the question, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 655.
15. For a full recent discussion, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 113–19; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 147–52; and M. Carasik, “Ruth 2, 7: Why the Overseer Was Embarrassed,” ZAW 107 (1995): 493–94.
16. The clause is so difficult that Campbell (Ruth, 96) does not attempt a translation and states that “a hundred conjectures about a badly disrupted text are all more likely to be wrong than any one of them absolutely right!” See also Block, Judges, Ruth, 657–58.
17. Here I am following Carasik’s explication (“Ruth 2, 7,” 493–94).
18. This is not to claim that sexual harassment was a category of behavior recognized in the Israelite legal system, or even one that had a name in biblical Hebrew. But the phenomenon of sexual language or contact that could make a woman uncomfortable existed in the realities of the ancient world, just as today. That Boaz orders/commands (swḥ) his young male workers not to touch or hoot at Ruth confirms this interpretation. The command of Boaz to his workers in 2:16 as a warning against even a remark that would make Ruth uncomfortable reinforces this interpretation. Cf. also the incident of the shepherds driving away Jethro’s daughters from the well until Moses’ arrival (Ex. 2:17).
19. Carasik, “Ruth 2, 7,” 494.
20. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 121–22.
21. M. I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.: Studia Pohl 12; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 187–99, 303–10.
22. The clause is concessive in force, “though I am a foreigner.” See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 123.
23. There is also alliteration of the consonants n and k. See Campbell, Ruth, 98–99.
24. See, e.g., Prov. 2:16; 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27. Also see Gen. 31:15; 1 Kings 11:1, 8; Ezra 10:2.
25. The statement, esp. with its use of ʿzb and môledet, is reminscient of Abram’s migration (Gen. 11:28–12:4). Thus Ruth is indirectly likened to Abram.
26. There are further implications connected to this term in ch. 3.
27. Berlin, Poetics, 88–89. A šipḥâ is of lower status than an ʾāmâ. Thus in 1 Sam. 25:41, Abigail states: “Look, your ʾāmâ is but a šipḥâ to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” Abigail is an ʾāmâ but wants to further reduce herself to a šipḥâ vis-à-vis David.
28. The exact nature of the word ḥōmēṣ that the NIV translates “wine vinegar” is not known. Cf. Num. 6:3; Ps. 69:21; Prov. 10:26. Perhaps it is some kind of refreshing sour condiment (cf. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 173).
29. “Roasted grain” (qālî) was a staple of Old Testament society (cf. 1 Sam. 17:17; 25:18; 2 Sam. 17:28).
30. This clause is variously interpreted. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 126.
31. Kennedy argues that this clause means, “Don’t hoot at her or treat her in such a way as to send her away frightened and helpless” (A. Kennedy, “The Root GʿR in the Light of Semantic Analysis,” JBL 106 [1987]: 47–64, esp. 60–64).
32. The Hebrew literally states: “She beat out what she had gleaned.” In order to thresh small quantities, the stalks and ears of the grain were beaten with a stick (cf. Judg. 6:11; Isa. 28:27). For such threshing techniques, see O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 63.
33. In a one-sentence comment, Sasson links the interpretation of this verse to the data from Mari, but not to all the Ration Lists evidence. He states: “Given the fact that at Mari of the Old Babylonian period, the ration of a male worker rarely exceeded one to two pounds per day, we are impressed by Ruth’s ability to gather enough to last her and her mother-in-law a few weeks” (Sasson, Ruth, 57). Hubbard follows Sasson (The Book of Ruth, 79).
34. Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, 61–62.
35. Campbell, Ruth, 104.
36. The even larger capacity measure for a ephah that is sometimes listed in commentaries (i.e., 36.4 liters) is a measure based on much later sources and would produce a homer (364 liters) that no donkey could carry! See the detailed discussion of M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” in ABD, 6:897–908, esp. 903–5. It may be that early Hebrew norms for the homer were not much different from those of the contemporary Mesopotamian homer. Thus Mesopotamian qû → sūtu → imēru :: omer → ephah → homer :: 1 liter → 10 liters → 100 liters respectively. The NIV text note states that the ephah is “probably about 3/5 bushel (about 22 liters).” This seems to be too high in light of recent research.
37. Ibid., 904. For a full discussion, see L. Milano, “Food and Diet in Pre-Classical Syria,” in Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East: A Collection of Essays, ed. C. Zaccagnini (Budapest: Chaire d’Egyptologie de l’Université Eötovos Loránd de Budapest, 1989), 201–71; F. M. Fales, “Grain Reserves, Daily Rations and the Size of the Assyrian Army: A Quantitative Study,” SAAB 4 (1990): 23–34.
38. According to this extrabiblical Hebrew inscription (lines 4–5), a month was devoted to harvesting barley and a month was devoted to harvesting wheat. See the discussion and bibliography in D. Sivan, “The Gezer Calendar and Northwest Semitic Linguistics,” IEJ 48 (1998): 101–5; Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 31–44.
39. For a more detailed discussion of the ration data and the implications of the ephah, see K. L. Younger Jr., “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” 121–25.
40. Zenger, Das Buch Ruth, 60.
41. This particular form of blessing is only found in 1 Kings 10:9 (= 2 Chron. 9:8) and Prov. 5:18.
42. In one sense, this is Ruth’s full name, similar to, e.g., Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3) or Ebed-Melech the Cushite (Jer. 38:7). See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 138.
43. Ibid. This may reinforce the possible conclusion that Ruth averaged an ephah per day.
44. The word pāgaʿ (with the prep. b) means “to physically attack” or “molest physically” (cf. Judg. 8:21; 15:12; 18:25; etc.).
45. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 140.
46. The very fact that Boaz stresses to his male workers not to “touch” or “hoot at” or in any way dispute Ruth is a clear indication that such things happened.
47. Cf. the “chance” finding of Joseph by the man in the field at Shechem in Gen. 37:15–17. If Joseph had not been “found” by this man, there would be no nation of Israel! Joseph would never have found his brothers, been sold into slavery, risen to vizier of Egypt, and saved his family from famine and the moral corruption of Canaan.
48. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 177.
49. Cf. also Ex. 22:22–24; Deut. 24:17–18; Ps. 68:4–5; 94:1–6; 146:9.
50. In fact verse 8 states: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” This is a continuation of the care for relatives as seen in the Old Testament context.
1. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 147.
2. Campbell, in fact, suggests that the verbal construction here alludes to other unspecified efforts by Naomi behind the scenes (Ruth, 116).
3. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 198.
4. The NIV translation does not reflect the conjunction + particle (weʿattâ) that regularly introduces a logical step in an argument, often a consequence or a conclusion. Thus the question should be translated: “So then, is not Boaz a relative of ours?”
5. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 148.
6. The choice of “tonight” rather than “this evening” may have been dictated by thematic considerations, i.e., to orient the audience to the timing of the scene about to unfold in the dark of the night. See Campbell, Ruth, 119; and Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 201 n. 16.
7. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 65–66.
8. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 150–52; Block, Judges, Ruth, 683. According to Ex. 22:25–26, poor people used this garment for a blanket at night. Since Ruth is a poor person going out to spend the night in the field, she certainly will need this to stay warm.
9. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 152. Block points out that this is confirmed by the interesting analogy of 2 Sam. 12:20, in which David ceased his mourning, washed himself, applied perfumed oil, put on his śimlâ, and went to the temple to worship—i.e., resumed normal life.
10. This particular term (margelôt), derived from regel, is used only in Ruth (3:4, 7, 8, 14) and Dan. 10:6. It probably has the same range of meaning as regel (foot, lower leg, leg), although in Dan. 10:6 it clearly refers to the legs as a whole (there it is paired to arms).
11. See, e.g., L. Morris, “Ruth,” in Judges, and Ruth (TOTC. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1968), 286; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 121.
12. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 152; Zenger, Das Buch Ruth, 67.
13. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 153.
14. For a fuller discussion, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 159–61.
15. Block notes that the notion of fear is not inherent in the word ḥrd used here (Judges, Ruth, 690, n. 34). Cf. Ex. 19:16; 1 Sam. 14:15; Isa. 32:11. The Targum reads, “and he was afraid, and his flesh became soft like a turnip from fear” (see discussion by D. R. G. Beattie, The Targum of Ruth [Aramaic Targum 19; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1994], 26 n. 5). Block adds: “Any effort to attribute the ‘startling’ to a dream or a midnight apparition or a visit by a night demon (Lilith) is unnecessarily speculative.” For further discussion see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 162.
16. I. Riesener, Der Stamm ‘bd in Alten Testament: Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden (BZAW 149; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1979), 76–83.
17. R. Schultz, “
” and “
” NIDOTTE, 1:418–21; 4:211–13.
18. This nuance seems to be confirmed in extrabiblical Hebrew inscriptions; see the discussion in Younger, “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” 126–28.
19. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 211.
20. The idiom pāraś kānāp ʿal (“to spread a garment-cover over [someone]”) means “to marry” (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Deut. 22:30 [23:1]; 27:20; Mal. 2:16).
21. L. Morris puts it this way: “Ruth had put herself under Yahweh’s ‘wing’ when she came to Judah. Now she seeks also to put herself under that of Boaz.” See Morris, Ruth, 290.
22. K. van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327–39, esp. 334–35.
23. Ibid., 335.
24. Hubbard, “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel,” 17.
25. The two descriptions are interconnected and establish his status and role. As pointed out in the introductory remarks on the gōʾēl, there was a hierarchy of response, and while it was a role that should be carried out, it was not a must.
26. Block, Judges, Ruth, 692.
27. Bernstein aptly puts it this way: “The narrative tells us straightforwardly that no sexual intercourse has taken place on the threshing floor, that final resolutions await the scene at the city gate. All the while, however, the vocabulary of the scene indicates that it might have, that the atmosphere was sexually charged. Thus the ambivalence. The words point, beneath the surface, to the might-have-been which the characters felt might be, while the combinations of the words emphasize the opposing reality. The author of Ruth is relying upon ambiguity in language to depict the tension of emotion, enabling him to convey the atmospherics of the scene without digressing from his narrative to describe them.” See M. Bernstein, “Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative,” JSOT 50 (1991): 15–26, esp. 19–20.
28. The request to Boaz reflects ḥesed loyalty to Naomi for as a gōʾēl, Boaz is a relative who can ensure security for Naomi, not just Ruth.
29. Campbell, Ruth, 125. Hence the attraction of the book to the final poem of the book of Proverbs in some of the canonical orderings (see the introduction).
30. Block, Judges, Ruth, 695.
31. Campbell, Ruth, 137.
32. The term miṭpaḥat is used only here and in Isa. 3:22, where it appears to have the nuance “cloak.”
33. For a discussion of the textual problem in this verse, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 698.
34. The question is not concerned about identification but about Ruth’s situation; the NIV translation attempts to reflect this.
35. Campbell, Ruth, 129.
36. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 186.
37. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 199.
1. Campbell, Ruth, 141. Cf. 2 Kings 8:5 for an interesting and clear analogy.
2. Sasson, Ruth, 106. This is a wordplay in which unrelated and perhaps even meaningless rhyming words are combined to produce a new idiom. English examples might included: “hodge-podge,” “helter-skelter,” “heebie-jeebies,” and “hocus-pocus” (see Block, Judges, Ruth, 706).
3. The renderings of the ancient versions, which attempt to translate the expression by some etymological explanation, are clearly attempts to translate a difficult and unknown phrase (i.e., they are nothing more than guesses by the translators).
4. Zenger, Das Buch Ruth, 81; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 197. Bush states: “Such a device can only raise our eyebrows and make us wonder proleptically about the role this man will play in the proceedings about to take place. (One wonders indeed if the Hebrew expression we have translated ‘So-and-So’ was also used euphemistically in place of a stronger epithet, as the English expression is!)” (p. 244).
5. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 199.
6. Brother is used in the sense of clan relative here.
7. For a more complete recent discussion of the difficulties, see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 200–243. I must acknowledge my general dependence on Bush’s research and argumentation at this point.
8. Ibid., 202. At issue is not the transfer of ownership of property but the acquisition of the right of holding in usufruct someone else’s property until the next Jubilee Year” (E. Lipiński, “
,” TDOT, 8:292).
9. The term “usufruct” means “the right of enjoying the use, profits, and advantages of another’s property or estate short of the destruction, waste or impairing of its substance.”
10. The absence of the seller and the failure to mention any payment or its amount render it most difficult, if not impossible, to regard the transaction involved as a preemptive sale, or sale of any kind, of the field of Elimelech to Boaz by Naomi. In addition, the nearer redeemer’s change of mind also makes it virtually impossible to understand the transaction as a preemption. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 215.
11. Outright sale was, of course, not possible to him.
12. Cf. 1 Sam. 4:5 (people rejoicing at the ark’s return) and 1 Kings 1:45 (people rejoicing at Solomon’s anointing). Even granting some overstatement here, the sentence, nevertheless, conveys the substantial impact of the return of Naomi and Ruth on the town. Boaz’s foreman refers to Ruth as “the Moabitess who came back from Moab with Naomi.” This seems also to indicate an awareness of her presence in Bethlehem.
13. It is inconceivable in a small town like Bethlehem that the ownership of a plot of land would have been forgotten after only ten years or so. Everything biblical points to a close registering of agricultural property. The detailed record-keeping in other regions of the ancient Near East also argues in favor of this man’s being aware of the property’s existence.
14. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, 9–89; idem, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” 65–87.
15. See Westbrook, “Redemption of Land,” 371; H. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife,” 15–16.
16. The Qere is preferred (see Bush, Ruth, Esther, 216, 229).
17. While “name” (šēm) can be used in the Old Testament as the virtual equivalent of “descendants, posterity” (cf. Isa. 66:22), in this context it has the connotation of “title.” See Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, 69–89.
18. For further discussion of ḥesed as the demonstration of the spirit of the law, see J. A. Loader, “Of Barley, Bulls, Land, and Levirate,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of S. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 123–38.
19. The term šāḥat in this context has connotations of “ruin” or “undermine.”
20. The nearer redeemer is now publicly caught in an ethical and economic dilemma. He has only three options: (1) He can agree to redeem the field and marry Ruth and so raise up an heir to inherit the family property of Elimelech. If he does this, he will incur the cost of redeeming the field, only to see it become the property of the heir he must raise for the line of Elimelech. (2) He can agree to redeem the field but ignore his pledge to marry Ruth. If he does this, he will cast himself in an unfavorable light as one who is willing to meet family obligations only when they benefit him and do not cost him. (3) He can cede his rights as redeemer to the next gōʾēl (i.e., Boaz).
21. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 246.
22. Since the singular naʿal is used as often as the dual to refer to the two sandals normally worn (cf. 1 Kings 2:5; Isa. 20:2; cf. Josh. 5:15 with Ex. 3:5), it is probably the usage here. Consequently, it remains uncertain who removes his sandals and gives them to the other and whether the act makes concrete a transfer of rights or legitimates the same by a symbolic payment. However, the most natural interpretation of 4:8 is to understand that the subject of the first verb, “the redeemer said,” is also the subject of the following verb “and he drew off,” and therefore it is the nearer redeemer who takes off his sandals and gives them to Boaz (cf. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 250). The act then symbolizes and makes concrete the transfer of rights from the one “redeemer” to the next. See Bush, Ruth, Esther, 234–36.
23. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 190.
24. Ibid., 191.
25. The NIV unnecessarily reverses the clauses in this verse.
26. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 240. Campbell, however, notes reasons why Rachel is listed first (Ruth, 152): (1) because Rachel was Jacob’s favorite wife; (2) because Rachel was buried traditionally at Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19); (3) because Rachel experienced a lengthy barrenness at first just as Ruth had in her earlier marriage; (4) because Ruth is second-named in 1:4 and was apparently married to the younger of the two sons (like Rachel, who was married to the younger of two sons: Jacob)—thus Ruth the least in rank of the story’s characters is now to receive the reward of her faithfulness.
27. The range of meaning for ḥayil has resulted in numerous translations: “power, strength” (NEB, JB); “worth, ability” (KJV, ASV); and “wealth, possessions” (NASB, RSV).
28. Tamar bears twins, Perez and Zerah, after she masquerades as a prostitute to seduce her father-in-law, Judah, who had failed to fulfill his promise to give her his youngest son, Shelah, as husband after his two older sons died while married to her.
29. A. Berlin, “Big Theme, Little Book,” 47.
30. Note also the huge contrast between Boaz and Ruth and the Levite of Bethlehem and his nameless concubine (Judg. 19)
31. Naomi is “the person whose ‘trial’ holds the whole story together” (Campbell, Ruth, 168).
32. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 250–52.
33. W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klaglieder (KAT 17.1–3, 2d ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962), 70.
34. Campbell, Ruth, 168.
35. Block, Judges, Ruth, 729.
36. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 264.
37. There does not seem to be any reason to understand this act as a legal adoption of the child by Naomi. Naomi has no need to adopt the infant; he is already hers through the legal fiction of the levirate. See the discussion of Bush, Ruth, Esther, 257–58.
38. Bush has surveyed the syntactic structures of name giving in the Old Testament and convincingly argues that this is a case of semantic wordplay. See F. W. Bush, “Ruth 4:17: A Semantic Wordplay,” in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 3–14.
39. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 261. The fact that Obed is in all probability a hypocoristic (an abbreviated form) for a name without a theophoric element (cf. ʿbdyhw/ʿbdyh, a common name in the Old Testament [e.g., Obadiah]) does not speak against this view since such a semantic play totally ignores scientific etymology.
40. “The announcement is addressed to the larger community outside the family, which is invited, not to claim the child for itself, but to appreciate what this means for Naomi. Hence, Naomi, as the primary beneficiary of the birth, is cited as the one to whom the child is born.” See S. B. Parker “The Birth Announcement,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Essays in Honor of P. C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 133–49, esp. 139.
41. R. Hubbard Jr., “Ruth IV.17: A New Solution,” VT 38 (1988): 293–301, esp. 296.
42. See Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” 48. He states: “Ruth is said to be better to Naomi than ‘seven’ sons (4:15). The descendent of Perez who married Ruth appeared in the seventh generation (4:21). The young widow Ruth, worth more to the old widow Naomi than seven sons, married the seventh generation Boaz. The elders had blessed Boaz that his house be like the house of Perez (4:12). The reader is now shown what the house of Perez meant—seven generations to Boaz (4:18–21) and ten to David.”
43. Berlin, Poetics, 86.
44. While, in certain ways, this could have had more to do with Mahlon and Boaz than Ruth, the text presents it as a specific way of God’s blessing Ruth.
45. In the biblical way of understanding, Elimelech’s, Mahlon’s, and Kilion’s deaths were not the result of fate. In his sovereignty Yahweh determines the timing. Cf. 1 Sam. 2:6: “The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.”
46. Hubbard, “The Gōʾēl in Ancient Israel,” 18.
47. A. Gaebelein, As It Was—So Shall It Be: Sunset and Sunrise: A Study of the First Age and Our Present Age (New York: “Our Hope,” 1937); M. R. DeHaan, The Romance of Redemption: The Love Story of Ruth and Boaz (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958).
48. Cf. the analogy of the divine gōʾēl, whose redeeming activity in at least one instance (Isa. 54:5) is described in terms of a marriage with a childless widow.