Judges, Ruth: Revised Edition (The NIV Application Commentary)

by K. Lawson Younger

This question of the women is followed by Naomi’s sarcastic double response, in which she utilizes two wordplays on her name, the first in the form of a command and the second in the form of a question. In the first wordplay (v. 20), she denies the meaning of her name, demanding that she be called Mara, “Bitter” (mara’ comes from the root marar, “to be bitter”), instead of the antonym “Naomi” (“pleasant, beautiful, good”).79 In the second wordplay (v. 21b1), she employs a rhetorical question (“why”) that is intended to reject the identity that her name implies. Both wordplays give the twofold reasons for the denial of her name in the design of a couplet. The two couplets, in turn, form a chiasm A:B and B':A'. A and A' utilize the divine name “Shaddai”80 and are parallel in structure and content; B and B' are parallel in their use of the divine name “Yahweh,” although they are different in structure and content. In B, Naomi states (author’s lit. trans.): “Full was I when I went away; but empty has Yahweh brought me back.” The emphasis is clearly on full (mele’ah) and empty (reqam). The two statements are chiastic.81 In B', the expression ‘anah be- means “to respond/speak against.” It is usually used in a juridical context, where it has the technical force “to testify against” (e.g., Exod 20:16; Num 35:30). The NIV’s “afflicted” attempts to capture this nuance. In Hebrew thought, one’s name was often understood to be expressive of one’s character, being, and personality. Thu...