READING RUTH

There are as many proposed methods for studying this book as there are biblical scholars. One thing almost universally accepted, however, is the fact that our present four-chapter division of this short story is a good approximation of the four “acts” in the narrative. And almost as universally recognized is the close relationship between the opening and closing chapters. See my earlier posts titled “Ruth: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and “Alternative Organization for the Book of Ruth.”

In most good stories (and the Book of Ruth is recognized as a small literary masterpiece by a number of prominent literary scholars), whether fictional or factually based, the main character undergoes some sort of development, for good or bad, during the course of the plot. But one unusual thing can be noted in this brief account, Ruth herself appears to undergo no development at all. From the very start to the conclusion she remains exactly the same woman dedicated to her mother-in-law Naomi, determined to follow her anywhere she goes and obeying all her advice to the letter.

However, the same cannot be said for Naomi herself, who goes through a complete transformation as the action ensues. For that reason, my own suggested reading strategy would be to follow her progress through the various events, not Ruth's. I realize that this is certainly not the approach most Jewish scholars have taken over the years. They prefer to concentrate on the “conversion” of Ruth from paganism to Judaism as an example of the superiority of Jewish beliefs. My suggestion also runs counter to most Christian commentators, who utilize this book almost solely to show how God brought about the earthly line that led eventually to the birth of Jesus the Messiah.

I am not arguing that these two common approaches are incorrect. After all, Ruth certainly can be looked at as the model of all who come to belief in the truth of God's revelation and follow it faithfully throughout their lives. And Matthew, for one, at the beginning of his gospel account mentions Ruth prominently among the earthly progenitors of Jesus, including other non-Jews such as Rahab and Bathsheba. In this manner, Matthew subtly underscores the fact that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all mankind, not just the Jews.

However, looking at this book from a purely literary viewpoint, one must strongly consider the possibility that the major character is the one who undergoes some sort of mental or spiritual transformation, and that can only apply to Naomi. So what happens once one looks at her as the “heroine” of the story? This can best be seen by comparing what we know about her in Chapter 1 and what we subsequently read in Chapter 4.

In keeping with Jewish norms at the time, I think we are safe in saying that the decision for Naomi and her family to leave Bethlehem in favor of a totally pagan land that promised more material welfare was made by her husband Elimelech without consulting her much, if at all. But there she lost in succession not only her husband, but her two sons also. At that point she appears to be in a serious state of depression since she tells her two daughters-in-laws to forget about her since she has nothing left to offer them other than exile in a foreign land (as she was exiled in a foreign land herself). This attitude does not reflect on her religious priorities much, since she would be in effect be damning her daughters-in-law to a pagan life. But it is perhaps forgivable in her self-adsorbed state of mind at the time.

Naomi, in Chapter 1, even goes as far as making a bitter speech to the women in Bethlehem when she arrives, moaning and groaning about the horrible way God has treated her. She asks them to refrain from calling her Naomi (meaning 'pleasant' in Hebrew) any more, but call her Mara ('bitter') instead.

Jumping ahead to the end of the story, we see several startling changes in Naomi's outlook on life. Again, the chorus of women appears, this time to point out to Naomi that she should bless God for his gracious provision of giving her a protector in the person of Boaz as well as a faithful daughter-in-law “who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons.”

In addition, whereas in Ruth 1:12 she complains that it is too late in life for her to have another son, in 4:16 she and the women treat Ruth's son Obed as if he were Naomi's son instead of Ruth's. We could also count as another reversal the fact that whereas at the start of the story Naomi appears as a more or less passive participant in the events, through the subsequent events it becomes obvious that it is due to her carefully orchestrating all of Ruth's moves that the happy resolution of the story became possible.

While we are contrasting Ruth 1 and 4 with one another, there are striking comparisons as well. If one looks at the two daughters-in-law, remember that only one remained faithful to her mother-in-law. Whereas Ruth chose to follow Naomi wherever she went and share her fate, Orpah decided instead to stay in her own familiar culture rather than striking out into the unknown. Commentators have generally labeled Orpah as unfaithful and rather selfish in her actions. Interestingly, we see the same sort of situation toward the start of Chapter 4 in comparing the two suitors for Ruth's hand. Compared to Boaz, the other unnamed near-kin wants to claim her land but not with the accompanying stipulations.

In conclusion, my modest and tongue-in-cheek proposal is that the book should be renamed Naomi rather than Ruth in order to better bring out the main theme.