LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF RUTH PART 2: ON THE ROAD

LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF RUTH

PART 2: ON THE ROAD

Marc Chagall 1960 Ruth Naomi and Orpah

1Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land.  And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. 2And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah.  And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. 3And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. 4And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. 5And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.

          

These six verses, like the opening tableau in Charles Dickens’, A Tale of Two Cities, compactly set us on our journey to discover how the worst of times leads to the best of times.  Setting the stage for our four scene play (short film), the storyteller around the fire or a narrator’s voice (or scrolling words in the opening frame à la Star Wars) places us “in the days when the judges ruled”, prior to the founding of the monarchy described in the books of Samuel.   The biblical convention that brackets a story with reference to time, often with a genealogy, pairs this opening with end of the story where we learn that Ruth is the great grandmother of David.   It frequently happens, as it has in this case, that the genealogy does not fit squarely with an astronomically precise calendar.   Such concerns are a distraction to be ignored since the convention is a literary device, not an historical one.

           We learn in the same breath that there was a famine in the land, a recurring theme in the Tanakh that, as in this case, causes a migration.  Such thematic repetition invites recollection of past and future famines and related journeys.  The story of Ruth evokes the famine driven migrations to Egypt during the time of Abram and Sarai and again in the time of Isaac and Rebekah (identical use of the phrase “a famine in the land” Genesis 12:10 and 26:1 respectively).  Thus, Elimelech and Naomi literarily follow in the footsteps of the patriarchs, as does Ruth on the return journey.  In the time of the Judges, such a famine would be seen as a punishment, but not so explicitly in the time of the patriarchs.  Though Ruth is set in the time of the Judges, no generalized punishment is connected to either of the two famines, though Naomi does express personal remorse and responsibility for what befalls her family.

            The storyteller grabs our attention in the next line by the ironic twist of fate that sends a certain (unidentified) man on a sojourn out of Bethlehem (literally: house of bread) in a time of famine to Moab, the land of Israel’s most despised enemy.  The audience (reader) is expected to know that Moab (meaning my son is my father’s) came about following an incestuous couple of nights between Lot and his two daughters after the escape from Sodom and Gomorrah told in Genesis 19: 30-37:

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

The storyteller uses his craft on the Moabite origin story to foreshadow the plot line in Ruth that will involve an old man and his two young daughters (in-law), a concern about preserving his name and seed and where wine imbibed will also drive the plot to make it happen one night in a high place.  Much of the surprise and delight in telling this tale stems from the storyteller's playful teasing of the audience/reader through artful misdirection. 

            Will Ruth’s lot be the same as Lot’s two unidentified virgin daughters?  Remember that he first offered them up to the men of Sodom, both young and old, to divert their interest from getting to know (biblically) two angels who were his guests.  Genesis 19:5-8.  We also should recall that these two virgin daughters were already betrothed to two prospective (also unnamed) sons-in-law.   When Lot urged them to flee the impending doom, they thought he jested, and so they perished.  The commentators note that Lot and daughters escaped the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah because of his hesed in the form of great hospitality to the two angels.  This largess contrasts with the accusation against Moab in Deuteronomy 23:5 of refusing to provide water and food to Israelites escaping from Egypt (contradicted in Deuteronomy 2: 26-29), repeated in Nehemiah 13:1-3, leading to the prohibition against marriage and prohibiting ten generations of Moabites from being admitted into the congregation of the Israelites.  Keep in mind also the sounds of “Zoar” from whence Lot went to his cave in the mountains and “Boaz”, the first meaning “little” the other being a name for the main pillar in a temple connoting great strength. 

            Back to the story of Ruth, we next learn the name of the certain man was Elimelek (God is my king), and the name of his wife Naomi (pleasant, amiable), both positive sounding.  In contrast, his two sons bear the names of Mahlon (sickly) and Chilion (frail), both extremely negative and quite unlikely to be names chosen by loving parents.  The sons’ names tie into the entry to Moab where Elimelek dies and the sons follow suit after marrying two women of Moab, Oprah (cries on the neck) and Ruth (derivation uncertain, but possibly meaning something that can be watered and also perhaps sharing some phonetic and scribal similarity to the word for "run") neither woman having borne children after ten years in Moab.     The seed of Elimelek thereby was not preserved.  The passage of ten years without child is a biblical period generally indicating a barren woman and/or marriage.  In Ruth's case, it may signify an empty womb waiting to be watered.

           In these first five verses, “Moab” has been mentioned 3 times, and will get two more in verse six.  In my mind’s ear, the storyteller emphasizes the word each time and maybe winks, nods or makes some other gesture to focus his listener’s attention on the resonant backdrop to the twice-told tale.  We get two more Moab references in the last verse of the chapter (total count now seven=millah manchah [key word]) bracketing the theme of "returning" (root word “shuv”) to which the story now turns:

6 Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.  7 Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah. 8 And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. 9 The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept. 9 And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people. 11 And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? 12 Turn again, my daughters, go your way;  for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons; 13 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.

            Note that the key root word has occurred six times.  Pay close attention to the geographical object of return in each usage:

1.     Naomi returns from Moab.  Her daughters-in-law go with her.

2.     Naomi with her daughter-in-laws together return to Judah.

3.     Naomi then tells her daughter-in-laws both to return each to her mother’s house.

4.     They reply that they will return with Naomi to her people.

5.     Naomi tells them, now as daughters, to turn back.

6.     Naomi repeats the turn back, again addressing them as daughters.

In the first usage of return, it refers only to Naomi and makes grammatical and logical sense in that Naomi is indeed going back from Moab to Judah.  In the second usage, the term return applies grammatically to all three, but logically can only apply Naomi, since neither Roth nor Oprah have ever been to Judah.  In the third usage, return applies grammatically and logically only to Ruth and Naomi who are instructed to turn again back their mother’s houses in Moab from whence they came to this point of [no?] return.  In the fourth usage return applies grammatically, but not logically, to all three women.  In the fifth and sixth usages the term applies grammatically and logically only to the Moabite women.   What is the storyteller is up to with this shifting use and play on the key word?  How do we make sense of the shift in relational characterization from daughter-in-law to daughter?  We must defer a possible explanation until we analyze the next six usages of return after unpacking the rest of the text in these six verses.

            Ironically, Naomi arises with her daughters-in-law to return to Bethlehem (literally the house of bread) for the same reason that she left, namely famine.  Naomi initially goes (takes) along her daughters-in-law possibly as an act of kindness.  She comes to a point on the way when she reaches the realization, as reflected in the dialogue, that she may not be doing them the kindness she may have intended.  They are, after all, Moabite women.  In urging each to return to her mother’s house, she confers on them a pair of blessings that also includes the central theme of the story.  She first calls on the Lord to deal kindly (hesed) with them as they have dealt with her and her dead husband and sons.  The blessing unmistakably invokes Leviticus 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD"; and Leviticus 19:34: "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."  In Hebrew, the word translated in the KJV as “neighbour” is more akin to kinsman or clan.  As explained in the rabbinical tradition, the greatest act of hesed (lovingkindness) is often associated with respect and caring for the dead, because it is a completely selfless act that obviously cannot be reciprocated by the beneficiary.  The second blessing calls for each of them to find rest in the house of her husband.  Is the husband here referenced the husband of her mother or the house of the deceased husband of each woman?  Following the second blessing there is much kissing and weeping, making for an emotionally charged scene that makes for an interesting comparison with a similar scene between David and Jonathan.  I Samuel 20.  But more of that at another time.

           We next come to the second and third instances of Naomi telling the daughters to turn back to Moab for practical reasons, namely that Naomi has no prospect for finding a husband to support all three of them and also too old to have more sons for them to marry, even if they could wait around long enough for these sons to become marriageable.   This passage in Ruth, in the Rabbinic tradition, accounts for the duty of every Rabbi to discourage a proselyte from converting to the Jewish faith, refusing the proselyte at least three times, perhaps as a test of seriousness.  It also focuses the listener/reader’s attention on a central point of controversy not only at the time Ruth was composed, but also throughout the history of Judaism, even unto the current generation.

This argument had its genesis after the exodus as Israel itself returned to its

homeland.  “And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.” Numbers 25: 1.   When Israel returned again to its homeland after the Babylonian exile (circa 500 BCE), a sort of restatement of law second (the scroll, probably Deuteronomy, discovered in the rebuilt temple) provided further injunctions against the inclusion of foreigners, specifically Moabites, in the congregation of Israel.  “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; they daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.  For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.”  Deuteronomy 7:4.   Is the listener/reader of Ruth to understand that what happened to Naomi’s sons, at least in Naomi's mind, was punishment for their intermarriage with Moabite women??

The passage then explains:  “The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”   From this the rabbis understand that a people few in number cannot maintain their identity and special relationship with the covenant if their numbers and purpose are diluted.  As we will see, the conditions of redemption (return to the tribes of Israel) will also be a substantive theme in Ruth.
            Deuteronomy 23: 3-7 formulates the exclusionary rule in no uncertain terms:  “3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever; 4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of the Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam …to curse thee.”  Note that this passage follows the exclusion of bastards, and also follows a chapter dealing with what happens when a man finds a damsel in the field, something no doubt on the mind of Boaz in an encounter that we will soon address.

            So in the post-exilic community, we find the priest and scribe Ezra (some scholars believe that he wrote Deuteronomy substantially in the form that has come down to us) strongly opposing intermarriage.  Ezra 9-10.  On the same page is Nehemiah, the Jewish governor of Judah and a contemporary of Ezra.  Nehemiah 13:1-3 and 23-30.  Moabites are not the only foreigners to be excluded.  He also points specifically to one of Ruth’s descendants, King Solomon, as Exhibit No. 1 for the prosecution on the catastrophic effects of marrying foreign women.

            In the face of such powerful advocates, however did it happen that the Book of Ruth got composed much less make into to the Hebrew Bible?  A strong case can be made that it won the writing competition and thereby won the hearts and minds of the people over the “better” judgment of the priests and prophets.  But even rhetorical/literary excellence probably would not have prevailed absent some countervailing support.  Look to Isaiah 56:3-7 where eunuchs and strangers “that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant… even them I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in the house of prayer…”

With this in mind, let’s return ourselves to the story. We come now to the first words spoken by Ruth alone and also come quickly to the point where Ruth takes over the action initiated by Naomi.  In the Hebrew bible, first words uttered carry great import.
             

14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
15And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods:  return thou after thy sister in law. 16And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: 17Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. 18When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.

The near poetry of these lines is almost captured by the KJV translation, but

the Hebrew is even more intense, compact and powerful. 
            Is it either surprising or ironic that Ruth’s words, one woman to another, have been invoked innumerable times over the centuries as wedding vows?  What are we to think of this homo-social relationship as well as the homo-social relationship of Jonathan and David  (a love so wonderful passing the love of women II Samuel 1:26), as the prime narrative explications of the fundamental tenet of Judaism: loving thy kinsman as thyself and, when taken to its height, the altruistic concept of hesed (lovingkindness) exemplified by beneficial acts for which no reward is expected, and in the case of the dead, no reciprocation is possible.  Ruth clave unto Naomi, going where she goes, lodging where she lodges (meaning the equivalent of a camping tent in Biblical Hebrew), her people becoming Ruth’s people and – the climax – Naomi’s god her god.  Not even death will separate them since Ruth will be buried where Naomi is buried. The final seal is a vow by Ruth invoking YHWH.  We will see a striking parallel to this dialogue in another one between Jonathan and David in I Samuel 18-20.  The intensification of the relationship in five steps at the end silences Naomi, a silence that speaks so clearly and steadfastly that nothing is left to be said.
            In this and other passages, we must keep in mind three of the major metaphors for YHWH’s relationship with Israel – husband, shepherd and king.

            19So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass,          when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?   20And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me. 21I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against the Almighty and me hath afflicted me? 22So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest.

This concluding verse nicely circles back to the beginning by returning

Naomi to Bethlehem.  The Israelite chorus asks “Is this Naomi?”  Naomi responds by making a pun on her name and changing it to Mara, that is from pleasantness to bitterness, because she left full (sons and husband) and came back empty.  Shaddai (translated as Almighty) bears responsibility for her affliction, an unusual ancient (possibly Canaanite) name with the uniquely Israelite name of YHWH.  Some scholars believe that Shaddai represents, at least in Canaan, the feminine aspect of the divine, one etymology deriving the word from a root that could be roughly translated as twin peaks or, in the words of French trappers on the frontier of western Wyoming, the Grand Tetons. The most frequent use of the name occurs in the story of Job, were El Shaddai meets out incomprehensible punishment as a test.

Before getting off the road, we need to summarize, count and note the distribution of the remaining returns.   Shuv appears 12 times -- six before the turning point (point of no return?) when Oprah leaves and Ruth cleaves to Naomi and six after.  I think Etshalom rightly perceives this bracketing as a literary structural equivalent of a kind of tug of war of emotions and considerations.  The first six appear in verses 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.  Kissing, cleaving and leaving happen in verse 14.  The last six returns appear in verses 15 (twice), 16, 21 and 22 (twice).  Six times the return is to Bethlehem: verses 6, 7, 10, 21 and 22 (twice).  Six times the return is to Moab: verses 8, 11, 12, 15 (twice) and 16.   Four times shuv refers to Naomi who always returns to Bethlehem: verse 6, 7, 21, 22.  Four times shuv refers to both kalot: verses 8, 10, 11 and 12.  Four times shuv refers to only one of the kalot: verse 15, 16, 17 and 22.

However, this elaborate literary structure does nothing to explain the overarching puzzle of Ruth "returning" in some sense to Bethlehem.  It seems to me that the story of Ruth is the bookend to the story of Lot's daughters.  Ruth, by acts of hesed and loyalty to Naomi, her people and her god, is returning to the twelve tribes of Israel as the personification of all Moabites, foreigners and strangers.  This view gets support from the eschatology in which the wolf lies down with the lamb and Moabite comes back.  The way back, of course, is by way of a Sinai event, a wedding of YHWH and Israel by way of the Torah.  As Deborah Fox insightfully observed, the precipitating event of the eschatology is the anointing of a messiah in the person of King David, Ruth's great grandson.
            And now we are ready to meet the good people of Bethlehem.