TEXT [Commentary]

B.   Naomi’s Bitter Prospects and Ruth’s Risk (1:7-19a)

7 With her two daughters-in-law she set out from the place where she had been living, and they took the road that would lead them back to Judah.

8 But on the way, Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back to your mothers’ homes. And may the LORD reward you for your kindness to your husbands and to me. 9 May the LORD bless you with the security of another marriage.” Then she kissed them good-bye, and they all broke down and wept.

10 “No,” they said. “We want to go with you to your people.”

11 But Naomi replied, “Why should you go on with me? Can I still give birth to other sons who could grow up to be your husbands? 12 No, my daughters, return to your parents’ homes, for I am too old to marry again. And even if it were possible, and I were to get married tonight and bear sons, then what? 13 Would you wait for them to grow up and refuse to marry someone else? No, of course not, my daughters! Things are far more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD himself has raised his fist against me.”

14 And again they wept together, and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye. But Ruth clung tightly to Naomi. 15 “Look,” Naomi said to her, “your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods. You should do the same.”

16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t ask me to leave you and turn back. Wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. 17 Wherever you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD punish me severely if I allow anything but death to separate us!” 18 When Naomi saw that Ruth was determined to go with her, she said nothing more.

19 So the two of them continued on their journey.

NOTES

1:8 on the way. This phrase is added by the NLT. The Hebrew simply opens the verse with “and she said.” It is unclear how far the women had gotten on the road, but the flow of the text would seem to imply they had not yet gotten far from their starting point.

mothers’ homes. The “father’s house” is the far more common reference in the OT, but cf. Gen 24:28; Song 3:4; 8:2. The use of “mother’s house” perhaps reflects a reality in ancient polygamous societies, where each wife would dwell in a separate tent or house. In such situations, the mother’s house was a smaller subset of the father’s house in a social sense and was the specific place to which the daughter would return (cf. Bush 1996:75). Here, the use of the term serves to contrast with the idea of staying with Naomi, the mother-in-law.

may the LORD reward you for your kindness to your husbands and to me. More lit., “May the LORD show loving-kindness (khesed [TH2617, ZH2876]) to you as you’ve shown to the deceased [husbands] and to me.” This is the first use of the word khesed in the narrative.

1:12 to your parents’ homes. The NLT adds this phrase for clarity.

I am too old. The verb (zaqanti [TH2204, ZH2416]) is in the perfect tense, but does not indicate past time in this case. The emphasis in this case is on the “factuality of the state as a whole” (Chisholm 1998:87).

1:14 But Ruth clung tightly to [her]. Heb., weruth dabqah [TH1692, ZH1815] bah (the NLT uses “Naomi” rather than “her” for clarity). This is the first Waw-disjunctive in the narrative. It serves to emphasize Ruth’s unusually noble character, particularly her love and loyalty to Naomi here.

1:15 gods. This could also be rendered “god.” Note especially 1 Kgs 11:33, where the pl. form is used of Chemosh. This does not highlight Orpah’s idolatry, for she is portrayed as making an expected and reasonable choice. It rather highlights Ruth’s extreme decision in committing not just to care for Naomi, but to adopt her God. It is also not necessary to assume any other poor character qualities on the part of Orpah as in the Aggadah found in b. Sotah 42b (cf. Ruth Zuta 1; Ruth Rabbah 2:20).

1:16 your God will be my God. The term “God” (’elohim [TH430, ZH466]) is used only four times in the book of Ruth: It occurs twice in this verse, once in reference to the foreign gods to which Orpah returns (1:15), and once in the phrase “[Yahweh], the God of Israel” (2:12). In contrast to this, Yahweh (yhwh [TH3068, ZH3378]) is often mentioned (cf. 1:6, 8-9, 21; 2:4, 12, 19-20; 3:10, 13; 4:12, 14). This is part of the book’s subtle emphasis on the specific identity and character of Israel’s God, to whom Ruth now commits herself. Because the personal name Yahweh is used consistently throughout the book, the theme of blessing associated with his character is more easily traced than references to multiple names would have allowed.

1:17 there I will be buried. Ruth’s commitment to Israel’s tribal land is significant (cf. Gen 50:24-26; Josh 24:32).

May the LORD punish me severely. Lit., “Thus may the LORD do to me, and thus do again.” Ancient oaths such as this one (cf. 1 Sam 3:17; 20:13) often implied curses without specifying their actual content—it would be up to the Lord to decide the severe punishment. Bullinger (1968:940) calls this an example of maledictio or imprecation, associating it with the Greek words apeuchomai (to deprecate, to wish something may not happen) and misos (hatred). By this oath, Ruth stated her commitment to Naomi in no uncertain terms.

COMMENTARY [Text]

With the first plural feminine verb in the book, 1:7 tells us that the women have set out on the road to Judah. They apparently did not get far before Naomi delivered some sound advice to her daughters-in-law. The narrator has signaled some question as to the views of the two young women about moving to Judah in his use of singular verbs in 1:6 (see note). Now the question of the realities of such a move is voiced by Naomi. Naomi makes her case three times, resulting in three exchanges (1:8-10, 11-14, and 15-18), climaxing with Ruth’s well-known vow to remain with Naomi. The first two rounds focus on Naomi’s words and end with weeping and a response on the part of the daughters-in-law. The third round, however, shifts its focus to the words of Ruth and ends with a response by Naomi—silence (1:18).

Naomi’s advice that the girls return to their home in Moab was grounded in the realities of their situation. It is likely she saw her advice as advantageous for all of them in the long run. Though she would have to make the journey alone, each of them would find support in a family network in their own homeland. The familiarity of language and culture and the strength of family were their best chance for getting by in these dire straits. Although we do not know anything directly regarding Moabite views about remarrying widows, it is not unlikely that Moabite women would be more attractive as spouses to Moabite men than to foreign men for the simple reason that people, on average, choose mates from backgrounds similar to their own (Kalmijn 1998). Naomi’s advice was based on a sound assessment of the situation and a concern for the best future for her daughters-in-law and herself.

Naomi’s first address is a short farewell that shows appreciation and good wishes toward her daughters-in-law and frees them from any obligation they might have had or felt toward her. First, she stated her advice (in the imperative) that they return home. Then she acknowledged their “kindness” (khesed [TH2617, ZH2876], see note on 1:8) toward her sons and toward her—she was probably implying that they hadn’t even needed to stay with her as long as they had. Finally, she wished them security in the homes of new husbands (1:9); they were in no way bound to remain with Naomi or to remain unmarried.

In customary Near Eastern fashion, this was marked with kisses and weeping. Kisses are not uncommon in traditional everyday greetings and farewells, but weeping marks either the beginning or end of a long separation. Another feature of traditional interactions in the Near East is that disagreement is sometimes used rhetorically to validate a person’s resolve. Thus, the first objection of Orpah and Ruth (1:10) to Naomi’s advice is probably best understood as expected and not necessarily indicative of a real intent to move to Judah. Orpah and Ruth were expressing their grief at this farewell through this denial; they were in a sense bartering with Naomi before concluding that separation was the price to be paid. A similar kind of interaction is probably in view in Genesis 23:11, where Ephron the Hittite offers to “give” Abraham a field and cave. Formalized agreements needed to be negotiated orally and vocalized repeatedly. Similarly, traditional Islamic law (Sharia) preserves the requirement that to divorce his wife, the husband must tell her three times that she is divorced.

It is therefore expected when, in the second exchange (1:11-14), Naomi repeated her assertion that the girls should return home (1:12). As she did so, she moved from her first, relatively formal farewell, to remarks that lay bare the pain and desperation of the situation. There was no benefit for the two women in remaining with Naomi, and in fact, they would further jeopardize themselves by staying with her. Naomi expressed this by first commenting that her bitterness was too great for them, and then by emphasizing that it was the Lord who acted against her. The second point is notable in what it implies about Naomi’s Israelite worldview—she was not subject to fate or chance, but to the sovereign Yahweh. Moreover, if she had been so designated to experience calamity, who knew what lay ahead? The sane thing for Orpah and Ruth to do was to try to distance themselves from God’s “target.”

Naomi’s first comment, regarding her bitterness (1:13), may be understood as saying that she was sorry that Ruth and Orpah had to suffer the calamity that had come upon her (cf. REB, “for your sakes I feel bitter”), or that the bitterness of remaining tied to Naomi’s family is “too much for [them] to bear” (NET), or that Naomi’s life is more bitter than theirs—that is, they have other alternatives and need not face the hardship she was facing (e.g., NLT, NASB). Because Naomi’s statements in 1:11-13a have focused on the potential of remarriage for the two women, the last option seems best. Like her earlier blessing on their potential remarriage (1:9), Naomi’s words here suggest that they had not lost everything as she had; they had a way out, a chance to start again and find happiness. Her lot was more bitter than theirs, and Naomi’s advice was that they take advantage of the opportunities that remained for them.

Naomi made her case, and the women once again expressed their great sorrow at parting. Orpah, as instructed, returned home, but Ruth refused to let Naomi go (see note on 1:14). Naomi, with Ruth clinging to her, encouraged her to follow her sister-in-law’s example, to be done with this sad parting and return to Moab (1:15). But Ruth will “return” only to Judah (see note on 1:22).

We do not know, and Naomi may not have known, what actual situation Orpah and Ruth would be returning to in their mothers’ homes and in Moabite society generally, but the narrator’s focus on the desperation of Naomi’s situation suggests that we should understand Orpah’s choice as a smart and natural one, and Ruth’s as a little risky. Pointing out the hard circumstances in which Ruth’s decision was made and the fact that Naomi discouraged it and did not expect it, Sakenfeld (1999:34) comments, “In sum, the loyalty of Ruth to Naomi may offer a general model for loyal relationships between all people, not just for daughter-in-law to mother-in-law. At the same time, the story of Ruth models loyalty freely offered to another, not coerced by custom, culture, or biblical demand.”

Ruth’s response to Naomi’s final word of advice that she follow her sister-in-law back to Moab expresses fully the intent of her clinging to Naomi, and it is more than Naomi bargained for. Ruth’s response is not simply a protest, but a comprehensively stated commitment to remain with Naomi for the rest of her life no matter the cost. At this point in the cycle of Naomi’s advice, Ruth’s commitment has been tested and is clear—all that remains for Naomi is to accept it (1:18).

Ruth’s statement includes the expected ideas of going with Naomi and living with her (1:16), but Ruth goes beyond this in declaring an intent to join Naomi’s people, be devoted to her God, and be buried in Israel (1:16-17). She sealed her statement with a curse in the Lord’s name should she violate her commitment. Joining another culture takes serious commitment, and in the world of Iron Age Israel, choosing that culture’s god or gods was not natural (cf. Matthews 2004:207). Unlike the case in the modern, Western mind-set, religious belief was rarely viewed as subject to personal choice and was instead a critical part of cultural identity. Ruth’s decision was a departure from all the primary markers of her identity as a Moabite. The importance of burial in one’s homeland may be observed, for example, in the requests of Jacob and Joseph to be buried in Canaan (Gen 49:29; 50:25). The implication of Ruth’s intent to be buried in Israel was a change of homeland and an intent to change her national identity if possible. She would be forever aligned with the family of Naomi and Elimelech.

As such, one might even suggest that Ruth informally took on the role that a living child of Naomi’s might have had, to ensure the care and support of a widowed mother (but cf. Matthews 2004:222). This concept may be hinted at in the words of 4:15: “your daughter-in-law . . . has been better to you than seven sons!”

This scene, which started with the women on the road to Judah, closes with Ruth and Naomi continuing on the road (1:19a). We do not see the women again until probably three or four days later upon the entry to Bethlehem at the end of their trek.