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

by K. Lawson Younger

What makes the passage even more ironic is the setting. All the action (the making of the carved image and a cast idol, the making of Micah’s son a priest, the hiring of a wandering Levite) takes place in the hill country of Ephraim, the very tribe where the tabernacle of Yahweh is located (i.e., Shiloh). It should be stressed, however, that even before the Levite enters the story, the implicit assessment of Micah’s shrine is negative since, according to Deuteronomy 12, the mere existence of a cult other than the one endorsed by God at the central shrine is condemned (Deut 13:12–18).

Just as the wayward Levite sought a place to settle, so now the text describes a wayward tribe seeking a place to settle. This is the initial link between the two stories. The tribe of Dan had had the least success in conquering any of its allotment (Judg 1:34). In order to find another place to settle, the Danites send out five warriors from Zorah and Eshtaol (note the link here with the earlier Samson narrative) “to spy out the land and explore it” (18:2). Just as the Levite happened to come to Micah’s house, so the Danite spies happen to come to Micah’s house and spend the night. And just as the Danites’ quest for new territory is illegitimate, so is their quest for a cult other than that of Yahweh. The narration backs up slightly to the time of their approach to Micah’s house when they recognize “the voice” (v. 3) of the young Levite servicing Micah’s shrine. The word “voice” (qol) probably refers to the Levite’s accent.27 Consequently, they bombard the Levite with questions about how he got there, what he is doing there, and why he is there. The Levite replies that Micah “has hired me and I am his priest” (v. 4). The answer does not disturb the Danites in the least (i.e., a Levitical priest serving in non-Yahwistic context). Instead, they solicit an oracle (probably through the divination of the ephod and terapim [household gods]; v. 5): “Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful.” Notice that they use the term “God,” not Yahweh. Ironically...

Six hundred men32 of the Danites set out to attack the unsuspecting town.33 Their camp near Kiriath Jearim receives the name Mahaneh Dan—“Camp Dan.” Arriving at Micah’s house, the five scouts inform their t ribesmen that the house contains a shrine with all the trappings. The five men enter the house and start taking the cultic materials while the six hundred, armed for battle, stand at the lookout. The Danites, who properly should have destroyed Micah’s cult (according to Deut 12:2–3), instead find it worthy of acquisition, even if by means of theft (Judg 18:15–17).

The Danites rebuild the city and rename it Dan,39 after their forefather. They also set up the image that Micah made and install “Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses” as priest (Judg 18:30; cf. Exod 2:22; 18:3; 1 Chr 23:14–15). The Levite’s Yahwistic name, Jonathan (“Yahweh has given”), and his genealogical connections to Moses40 heighten the irony of the entire story. Thus, the problems of religious syncretism and spiritual decay have infected the very institution designed to combat these problems, not to mention one of the most revered households in ancient Israel. If Jonathan were the “grandson” of Moses, the events depicted in the chapter occurred early in the period of the judges. If so, then the events of this section (Judg 17:1–18:31) may historically precede and furnish the background for the story of Samson (13:1–16:31). But the expression used here may simply be understood as the “descendant” of Moses, so that the chronological time frame remains ambiguous.

MORAL BANKRUPTCY. What kind of son steals from his own mother? What kind of mother leads her son into idolatry? What kind of a Levite serves at an idolatrous shrine and then happily moves to serve at a bigger idolatrous shrine? And what kind of people plunder their own people while on their way to annihilate a peaceful city in a region outside the boundaries of their God-ordained allotment?

Happiness can never be achieved by pursuing it, since such a pursuit involves the absurdity of self-deification.

As in Conclusion 1, a Levite plays a significant role in the narration of this second conclusion. By focusing on Levites in the concluding episodes, the narrator communicates the extent of Israel’s moral decline. The corruption that has infected the people and their deliverers has even spread to those entrusted with the Yahwistic instruction and with upholding Yahweh’s holiness in their lives. In this case, in the introduction (Part A, vv. 1–2), the Levite lives in a remote area of the hill country of Ephraim. As in the first conclusion, this certainly indicates support problems for the Levitical priests since he is not living in one of the Levitical towns. This Levite “took a concubine [pilegesh] from Bethlehem in Judah” (19:1; again a link with the first conclusion). A concubine was a second-class wife—a woman who performed marriage duties without the same legal rights as a full wife (cf. Gideon’s concubine in 8:31). This may imply that the Levite has another wife, but the text contains no record of that. His concubine “was unfaithful to him” (19:2, NIV; lit., “prostituted against,” znh ‘l). The more likely reading based on the ancient versions is “his concubine was angry or quarreled with him.”16 The text does not explicitly blame either party for this separation. But in light of the Levite’s later conduct, it seems most likely that the blame rests with the Levite. The young woman initiates a separation and goes straight for her father’s house in Bethlehem.17 Thus, the ...

Block notes: “The last clause of verse 15 would have been shocking anywhere in the ancient Near East, but it is especially shocking in Israel. The social disintegration has infected the very heart of the community” of God’s people.

Finally, an old man from Ephraim, a temporary resident in Gibeah and not a Benjamite, comes by and questions the party. In his response, the Levite presents himself as a weary traveler returning home (the NIV reads: “the house of the LORD”29 in verse 18, but see text note a) after a visit to Bethlehem. He does not mention the reason for the visit, since this might raise questions about the good character of himself and/or his concubine. Rather, he emphasizes that they do not need anything except a place to sleep. The deferential “me, the woman (lit. “your maidservant” [’amah]) and the young man with us” is calculated to win the host’s favor while conveying minimal information.30

Concerning the Old Testament law of rape in an urban area, if a woman screams, she is deemed innocent. While the text does not state that she screamed, it does stress her innocence, which leads to the conclusion that she must have screamed. If this was the case, then the citizens of Gibeah are guilty of not rescuing her from these “sons of Belial.” It is a troubling thought, but the image of this young woman being raped and abused—crying out for help, screaming in pain—falls on deaf ears. No one takes any action to save her. Later, the people of Gibeah refuse to hand over the guilty men. Certainly, the citizens of the town know who they are. Are they too afraid of them, or are they just that callous?

The most agonizing question that confronts the reader is: Was the woman dead when the Levite found her on the doorstep? Two of the ancient versions answer the question. The LXX and the Vulgate offer “but she was dead” as the answer to the Levite’s commands to his concubine when he comes out the door in the morning. Yet the Hebrew text of Judges 19:29–30 is not clear “whether the Levite simply dismembers a corpse or whether he himself murders his concubine in a fit of rage”46 (see further comments on 20:1–48). Usually the Hebrew Bible states when a person is dead. If the ancient versions preserve the original reading, it is hard to explain how such an important clause was dropped in the transmission of the text. It is more reasonable to assume that the original had no statement that she was dead and that the versions added it, attempting to solve the apparent problem. Since the text does not say that she is dead, there is some uncertainty as to when she dies. Having returned home, instead of giving her a proper burial (if she is dead), the Levite callously took a knife and cut her up limb by limb. He sent the parts to the twelve tribes in order to cause horror among them and muster them for war against Benjamin. Later, Saul will call up the tribes of Israel in a strikingly similar fashion, although he cut up a pair of oxen, not a woman (1 Sam 11:7)!

What is especially horrific about this war is that it is against one of the tribes of Israel and is executed “with a determination and a thoroughness surpassing anything evidenced in Israel’s wars with the Canaanites elsewhere in Judges.”88 The men on both sides are called “valiant fighters” or “swordsmen” (20:2, 15, 17, 25, 35, 44, 46). The tragedy is that these are all valuable soldiers whom Israel cannot afford to lose in their occupation of the land of Canaan—a task that seems all but forgotten.

In the same way, there is an imbalance in the difference in Israel’s implementation of the herem. The herem is executed with a greater determination and more thoroughly than in any of Israel’s wars with the Canaanites as narrated at the beginning of Judges. In other words, they are willing to follow God more in destroying other Israelites than they are in destroying Canaanites! One of the greatest ironies of this book is that it is a nameless Levite, so self-centered and callous, who gets the greatest response from the Israelites. The Israelites are incited to almost a frenzy level by this Levite—they are willing to sacrifice their sons in a war to revenge a man whose testimony is false and motivated by self-interest. In contrast, at the end of Introduction 1 (1:1–2:5, esp. 2:1–5), the Israelite assembly is moved to tears by the angel of Yahweh’s speech (God’s special envoy), which is fully true and accurate, yet the people quickly depart from God’s way. There is little real resolve to follow God.

“The threefold reference to Israel, with Yahweh being addressed as ‘the God of Israel,’ implies that the matter in hand is ultimately his responsibility.”90 Their inquiry is not “a request for information.” Rather, it is “an oblique form of protest and an attempt by the inquirers to absolve themselves of any responsibility.”91 But Yahweh does not answer. “In the previous episode he chastised them by speaking; here he chastises them by remaining silent. Yahweh will not be used by them.”92

It is truly ironic that “united Israel exterminates Jabesh-Gilead of all but virgin females for the very covenant crime of which Benjamin had earlier been guilty [the abuse of a woman] and does so in order to evade exterminating Benjamin from the nation. As a result, intertribal unity is preserved at the cost of loyalty to the terms of YHWH’s covenant.”94

FOR A SECOND TIME THE ISRAELITES GRIEVE FOR BENJAMIN. It is interesting that in this last scene the elders of Israel play a critical role. The only other time that the elders of the entire nation of Israel95 are mentioned in this book is 2:7, where it describes the elders under whom the Israelites served Yahweh. In contrast, the elders in 21:15–25 are the devisers of a shameful plan to supply the Benjamites with the necessary women to make up the shortage from Jabesh Gilead.

The annual festival of the LORD provides the context. This festival may have been a local one, or in light of the reference to vineyards (21:20), it may refer to the Feast of Tabernacles.96 Block suggests that because of the ambiguity on the part of the narrator, this festival may have been a further indication of the Israelite move toward Canaanization.97 The elders instruct the Benjamites to hide in the vineyards, and when the girls of Shiloh come out to dance, seize98 a wife from these girls of Shiloh. The Benjamites need not worry about the girls’ fathers.99 The elders have anticipated this and have a plan. They will use the Mizpah oath against the girls’ fathers: “Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them” (v. 22). Isn’t this big of the elders?! The implication is that if the fathers do not accept the abductions, the elders will hold them guilty of giving their daughters to the Benjamites, and they will come under the oath’s curse (cf. 21:18b). As in the previous case of Jabesh Gilead, this is a case of using one aspect of the oath in order to circumvent another aspect—again, legally justifiable, but morally reprehensible. With the Benjamites “seizing”100 wives, the fathers are not technically “giving” them to the Benjamites. The legal intimidation of the threat of the oath’s curse eliminates the fathers from making any objection (...

BLOCK SUMS UP IN AN OUTSTANDING WAY THE place that the book of Judges plays in the modern church context: No book in the Old Testament offers the modern church as telling a mirror as this book. From the jealousies of the Ephraimites to the religious pragmatism of the Danites, from the paganism of Gideon to the self-centeredness of Samson, and from the unmanliness of Barak to the violence against women by the men of Gibeah, all the marks of Canaanite degeneracy are evident in the church and its leaders today. This book is a wake-up call for a church moribund in its own selfish pursuits. Instead of heeding the call of truly godly leaders and letting Jesus Christ be Lord of the church, everywhere congregations and their leaders do what is right in their own eyes (emphasis added).106

In the twenty-first century, sexual commerce and the exploitation of unregulated migrants makes up the third-largest source of illicit income worldwide, after illegal arms dealing and drug trafficking. The trafficking in human beings affects millions of people each year; eighty percent of these victims are women. Many of these are in forced prostitution, but a growing number are in forced marriages, particularly in Asia.107

Our worst enemy. In certain ways, Judges 21 uncovers the real source of our sin. At the beginning of the book, Israel failed to implement the herem and was influenced by the Canaanites into idolatrous worship and apostasy. Throughout the cycles section, there was a progressive Canaanization of the cyclical judges, climaxing in the moral nadir of the self-absorbed, revenge-driven Samson. But in the final chapters of Judges, and especially in chapter 21, the Canaanites are absent. Thus Block concludes: “This book and the history of the nation that follows serve as eternal testimony to the grim reality that God’s people are often their own worst enemy. It is not the enemies outside who threaten the soul but the Canaanite within.”108 Israel was influenced by Canaan, to be sure, but the source of the problem lay in their own hearts. The problem was in their inherent sinfulness and rebellion, which the Canaanite influences only amplified. So it is with us. The ultimate root of the problem in the church today is not in the influence of the culture around us; rather, it is in our unwillingness to believe, to take God at his Word, and then to obey. We need to submit ourselves, our inherent sinfulness, to the transforming work of the Spirit (Rom 12:1–2).

THE BOOK OF RUTH CONTAINS A WONDERFUL LOVE STORY, which, while set in the period of the judges, contrasts greatly with the general chaos and disobedience of that period. In a refreshing way the book provides an antithesis to the incessantly negative message about the conditions in Israel during that time by underscoring God’s tremendous blessing in the midst of great familial distress.

In this arrangement, Ruth follows directly on the heels of Proverbs 31:10–31 (which focuses on ’eshet hayil, “a wife of noble character” [lit. “a woman of strength of character”]). Ruth is called an ’eshet hayil (“a woman of noble character” [lit. “a woman of strength of character”]) in Ruth 3:11.7 Obviously, this order has probably developed from thematic associations.

THE CONCEPT OF HESED IS IMPORTANT to understanding the book of Ruth since it is used to describe both secular and divine-human relationships. Unfortunately, it is a Hebrew word that no one English word can begin to convey accurately. Being expressive of relationships, the term connotes altogether the notions of covenantal loyalty, faithfulness, kindness, goodness, mercy, love, and compassion.

Hesed springs from and is based on relationship, usually some sort of prior relationship. Because of this, it is inherently tied to the concept of covenant (berit)17 and is expressive of the deep and abiding loyalty and commitment between the parties of that covenant.

Hesed refers to an act performed for the benefit of a person in real and desperate need, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between the parties concerned.20 • It is performed for a situationally weaker person by a situationally more powerful person. This is most clearly illustrated in God’s acts of hesed for his people.

Yahweh is the one who models hesed (over two-thirds of the word’s total number of occurrences are God’s hesed to humans). Clark argues that it is “a characteristic of God rather than human beings; it is rooted in the divine nature.”23 It

The book of Ruth employs hesed on both the divine and human levels. The word occurs three times in the book. In Ruth 1:8, there is a clear reference to Yahweh’s hesed (the passage also contains a reference to human hesed). The LORD’s hesed is the factor that eventually leads to the successful remarriage of Naomi’s daughter-in-law, so that it cannot help but be recognized in the provision of a “kinsman-redeemer” (go’el) for Ruth (cf. 4:14). Moreover, while not stated, Yahweh’s act of giving a child in Ruth 4 should certainly be understood as an act of hesed.

Interestingly, the only human actors who are explicitly said to have exercised hesed are Orpah (once) (1:8) and Ruth (twice) (1:8; 3:10). Thus, ironically, Moabites (in particular Ruth) are the people who most clearly manifest hesed in this book.

Berlin expresses this position: In what amounts to a change of identity, from Moabite to Israelite (for there was as yet no formal procedure or even the theoretical possibility for religious conversion), Ruth adopts the people and God of Naomi. Religion was bound up with ethnicity in biblical times; each people had its land and its gods (cf. Mic. 4:5), so that to change religion meant to change nationality.

Contrast is also used to good effect: pleasant (the meaning of “Naomi”) and bitter (1:20), full and empty (1:21), and the living and the dead (2:20). This use of contrast is most strikingly developed between two of the main characters, Ruth and Boaz: The one is a young, foreign, destitute widow, while the other is a middle-aged, well-to-do Israelite securely established in his home community. For each, there is a corresponding character whose actions highlight, by contrast, her or his selfless acts: Ruth versus Orpah, Boaz versus the unnamed kinsman-redeemer.

A GUARDIAN-REDEEMER (NIV 2011) (go’el) was the adult male blood relative who served as an advocate for any vulnerable and/or unfortunate clan member in order to correct any disruption to clan wholeness, well-being, or shalom (shalom)—especially through the redemption or restoration of property, persons, or lineage.52 The term “guardian” in the translation of go’el as “guardian-redeemer” is misleading. First, the word go’el has nothing to do with the notion of guarding or guardianship. Second, a guardian might be male or female; in this case, it is only a male function. Certainly, the notion of being a redeemer is not limited to either gender, but historically a go’el was only a male. Third, a guardian might not be a blood relative, but this was specifically and only a blood relative. It was a lineage matter. Thus, it moved down the lineage from the nearest adult male relative, to the next nearest adult male relative, and so on. Thus, the NIV 1984 translation as “kinsman-redeemer” is more accurate. The “clan” (mishpahah) or “linear descent group”53 seems to have been the focus of the law of the go’el (Lev 25:48–49).54 Apparently, this “clan ‘wholeness’ encompassed both living and deceased members of the clan” or kinship group.55 Since there is no similar institution in modern Western societies, there is no word in English remotely equivalent. Moreover, while similar social functionaries are attested in other tribal cultures, the terminology associated with the go’el is almo...

The levirate marriage is found in three passages64: (1) Deuteronomy 25:5–10 (legal statements), (2) Genesis 38 (Onan and Tamar; no progeny), and (3) Ruth 4 (Boaz and Ruth; progeny). “The purpose of the levirate was to prevent extinction of the deceased’s title to his landed inheritance.”65 Through it, family or clan wholeness was restored. Thus it was clearly a legal fiction, insofar as the offspring from the levirate belonged fictionally to the deceased line. Westbrook argues: “It is clear, therefore, that the levirate is a great sacrifice on the part of the brother, for he might just let the deceased remain without issue and take over the inheritance for himself and his progeny.”66 Though the offspring from the levirate belonged fictionally to the deceased’s line, the offspring took their name from the levir (as Gen 38 and Ruth 4 manifest). In light of this, the reluctance of the levir in Deuteronomy 25 and Genesis 38 are understandable. However, in Genesis 38 had Onan refused outright, he would have gained nothing, since either his father or younger brother could have performed the levirate and thus produced an heir to Er. Moreover, as the firstborn, Er was entitled to a double share, as would be his fictional son, so Onan’s potential loss was even greater. Thus, Onan devised a subterfuge or trick. He ostensibly undertook the responsibility given to him but took care that no heir could possibly result from the union. He had intercourse with Tamar but made sure that he d...

Kenneth Way rightly notes: Through the covenant, God reveals his loyalty (hesed), works out his redemptive plan despite obstacles (providence), includes the nations (especially faithful foreigners), and elects his leaders (such as David).79

THIS PROLOGUE PROVIDES THE SETTING and predicament that will dominate the book: Since the Judahite males of the family of Naomi die while living in Moab, she is without a male to care for her. In staccato style, the story compresses a number of years into a few verses in order to confront the reader with the book’s main problem: Naomi’s emptiness.

The setting (1:1–2). The story is set in the period of the judges (1:1a). Such an allusion must have conjured up for the original audience visions of the moral and spiritual declivity with the consequent oppressions and chaos that prevailed in that time.2 In identifying the story with the period before the monarchy, a period that the book of Judges depicts as a rough and violent era, the book of Ruth offers a significant contrast, for it presents a serene and pastoral picture. This opening clause forms an inclusio with the historical reference to David in 4:17b so that the leadership vacuum evident during the period of the judges is answered in the ideal king, David.3

Verse 1 quickly adds that “there was a famine [ra‘ab] in the land. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah . . . went to live a while [lit., to live as a foreigner, gur] in the country of Moab.” Since “there was a famine in the land” occurs elsewhere only in Genesis 12:10 and 26:1,4 this phrase clearly alludes to the famines of the patriarchs: Abram, who left the land to live as an foreigner (gur) in Egypt, and Isaac, who left the land to live (gur) in Gerar among the Philistines. In both instances, in spite of the tragic famines and patriarchs’ false witnesses concerning their wives, Yahweh’s sovereign plan brought blessing on his people. The text infers this may happen again here.

Ironically, the man comes from Bethlehem (bet lehem),13 which means “house of bread,” but there is no bread/food in that city. This man, together with his wife and two sons, go to live as resident foreigners in the country of Moab—a traditional enemy of Israel throughout biblical history.14 As Hubbard aptly notes: This family left the familiar for the unfamiliar, the known for the unknown. The foursome was legally a “stranger” (Heb. gēr), and so was its world. Further, to seek refuge in Moab . . . was both shameful and dangerous.15

Verse 2 relates that the man’s name is Elimelek (“My God is king”) and his wife’s name is Naomi (derived from the root na‘em [“be beautiful, pleasant, good”]).17 The meanings of both names play a role in the story: Elimelek with the coda, Naomi with Ruth 1:20. The names of their two sons are Mahlon and Kilion. Both names are etymologically uncertain and presently unattested in the ancient Near Eastern onomastica.18 They may be coined names meaning “sickly one, sickness” and “finished or spent one, [hence] destroyed, death” used as “ominous names,”19 implicitly pointing to the intensification of the crisis about to strike Naomi.20

Marriages to the people of the land (i.e., Canaanites) were strictly forbidden (Deut 7:3; cf. Judg 3:6). Deuteronomy 23:3[4] does not prohibit marriages to Moabites and Ammonites; it only prohibits the offspring of such unions from entering the assembly of the Lord until the “tenth” generation.29 Ironically, the marriages of Mahlon and Kilion lasted ten years, until their deaths. Both marriages, however, are marked by infertility: ten years, but no children (Ruth 1:4). The covenantal implications are clear: As Yahweh withheld the rain and thus produced the famine, so he withheld fertility, hence no children (Deut 28:4, 18; cf. 1 Sam 2:5–6). These are Israelites who by choice are not living in the land (on their God-given nahalah).

The family of Elimelek teeters on annihilation. Thus, while the threat of starvation plays a large role in the story (1:1, 6, 22; ch. 2; 3:15, 17), it is only secondary to the problem of the family’s survival. In ancient Israel, the loss of a family from existence was a great tragedy. When a family died out physically, it ceased to exist metaphysically. That robbed Israel of one of her most prized possessions, namely, clan and tribal solidarity. Hubbard points out that another crisis is the possibility that Naomi now faces old age without anyone to care for her.32 As a widow, Naomi lacks the provision and protection of a husband in the male-dominated ancient Near East. Moreover, it must be remembered that she lives in a foreign land. Because of her age and poverty, she is effectively cut off from the three options that might normally be open to a widow:33 1. There was the possibility of returning to the house of her father. But her parents are most likely already dead. If the disaster had come earlier in life, she could have returned to her father’s house like an ordinary young widow. This is not the case here. 2. There was the possibility of remarriage, perhaps even a levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10). This seems to be out of the question since she is beyond child-bearing years. 3. There was the possibility of supporting herself through some kind of craft or trade. This is unlikely since she has none (the vast majority of women in antiquity did not have such an option).34 ...

Hint of change (1:6). Through these initial verses of the story, the introduction has set the stage by showing that all possible lines of hesed in the ancient world available to Naomi have been effectively severed. But verse 6 gives a hint that this may change if empty Naomi returns to the newly filled land of promise, since Yahweh has come to the aid of his people, providing food for them. Verse 6 is antithetically parallel to verse 1, providing a chiastic contrast in content:37 A “there was a famine” B “went to . . . Moab” B' “return . . . from there [lit., Moab]” A' “the LORD . . . [provided] food”38 Thus verse 6 rounds off and brings to a conclusion the prologue of verses 1–2 by balancing “went to Moab” :: “returned from Moab,” and “famine” :: “food.”39 This is the first time Yahweh is mentioned in the story, and it is in the context of his compassionate provision for his people.40 The language of verse 6 is also rich with assonance and alliteration (latet lahem lahem), ending with the word for food (lehem), which unsubtly directs Naomi, as well as the reader, back to Bethlehem, “(store)house of bread/ food.” As Yahweh has provided food for his people, will he yet provide fertility to Ruth and an offspring for Naomi? Finally, verse 6 also acts as a transition and a preview to what follows. It accomplishes this through the use of the key word shub (return).41

In section A (v. 7), the three women leave Moab and head for the land of Judah. The terms “leave” (yatsa’) and “go” (halak) correspond and contrast to section A' (v. 19a), where Naomi and Ruth “go” (halak) and “come” (bo’) to Bethlehem. With the convenience of travel in modern times, a simple fact may be overlooked: travel in ancient times was hard45 and very dangerous, especially for women who were alone. Brigands were common (cf. Jephthah’s gang), and security was always an issue in the period of the judges (Judg 5:6). Therefore, the decision to travel to Bethlehem must be evaluated in this context.

The three women set out on the road to Judah (Ruth 1:7). They probably have not gone very far—perhaps they have not even left Moabite territory—when Naomi speaks up. Since in the ancient joint-family household,46 there was a type of authority residing in a mother-in-law,47 it may be that the two daughters-in-law are returning initially because they feel compelled socially to do so. The book of Ruth demonstrates the complexity of power dynamics between women in this cultural context.48 In fact, the book demonstrates, perhaps better than any other book, that society in the Old Testament was a “heterarchy.” Therefore, in 1:8–9, Naomi releases her daughters-in-law from this authority.49

In section B (vv. 8–9a), the first dialogue of the book, Naomi urges her daughters-in-law to return “each of you, to your mother’s home.” Having come to Moab as a foreigner, Naomi certainly understands the problems and difficulties her daughters-in-law will face if they accompany her back to Bethlehem. She intends to spare them such grief. The phrase “mother’s house/home” is unusual, since most often the Hebrew Bible refers to a widow returning to her father’s house. While many different explanations have been given, the e...

Naomi’s urging must have been with some mixed feelings. To urge Orpah and Ruth to return to Moab necessitates that she will travel home completely alone. But to have them return to Judah with her requires them to renounce all hope and effectively consign them to the life of a poor old widow. Thus she sees no other choice but to encourage them to return. To the calamity of losing home...

Naomi pronounces a blessing on the women (v. 8): “May the LORD show kindness [hesed] to you, as you have shown to your dead husbands and to me.” Naomi invokes a proportionate blessing of hesed on the women because of their hesed to the deceased (see the discussion of hesed in the Introduction to Ruth, pp. 489–92). As the women have shown covenantal loyalty, kindness, goodness, mercy, love, and compassion in voluntary acts of extraordinary mercy or generosity toward Naomi and her two sons, so Yahweh will show hesed to them. The reference to the dead is simply Naomi’s way of referring to her two sons, to whom Ruth and Orpah have shown loyalty and faithfulness during the ten years of their marriages. Naomi concludes with an additional blessing: “May the LORD grant ...

While the text has only subtly alluded to this fact and the reader may not have fully recognized it, Naomi makes it abundantly clear that, at least in her understanding, the earlier famine in Bethlehem, her family’s sojourn in Moab, the deaths of her husband and sons, and the barrenness of her daughters-in-law are all evidences of God’s hand as the cause of her hardships. She feels she is the target of God’s overwhelming power and wrath. That God is actively behind these events will be affirmed throughout the story; that he is punishing Naomi—at least as Naomi feels is the case—is not necessarily correct. God is not out to get her (see further comments below, pp. 537–38).

Consequently, Orpah kisses Naomi good-bye. Naomi’s powerful argument has convinced her that a normal life back in Moab is preferable to life with Naomi in Israel. She chooses the sensible track.65 But this only heightens Ruth’s reaction. She clings (dabaq) to Naomi. The order of the clauses expresses the simultaneity of Ruth’s and Orpah’s actions as a contrast between them.66 The expression “cling to” (dabaq + prep. b) implies here firm loyalty and deep affection.67 It implies leaving membership in one group to join another. In Genesis 2:24 this expression is used along with its opposite (‘azab) (author’s translation): For this reason a man will leave (‘azab) his father and mother, and will cling (dabaq + b) to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Berlin puts it this way: In the case of Orpah, both she and Ruth initially react the same way, expressing reluctance to leave Naomi. Only after prolonged convincing does Orpah take her leave, and, of course, Ruth’s determination to remain with Naomi becomes, in the eyes of the reader, all the more heroic. The two were first made to appear similar—they were both Moabite wives of brothers, both childless widows, both loyal to their mother-in-law. Only gradually is the difference between them developed, and when it is, the effect is dramatic and moving.68

a Do not press/urge me to leave you, or to turn back from following you. b For wherever you go (halak), I will go (halak); And wherever you stay (lun), I will stay (lun). c Your people (‘am) will be my people (‘am), And your God (’elohim), my God (’elohim).71 b' Where you die (mut), I will die (mut); And there shall I be buried. a' Thus may Yahweh do to me and more so—Nothing but death (mut) will separate me from you! The terms in b, “go” (halak) and “stay” (lun), are opposites, creating a merism, equivalent to saying “all of life.”72 Ruth swears her commitment to Naomi in the name of Israel’s God, thus acknowledging him as her God.