What Ruth and Naomi's Relationship Really Means -- a study of Ruth 1
- mww
- Feb 16, 2017
- 15 min read
Updated: Jun 29
Being bitter toward God doesn’t mean you have to lose faith.
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Ruth 1
Sometimes God’s plan involves having to endure terrible circumstances, but God gives us relationships to give us comfort and encouragement. Like Naomi, we can keep our faith in God even when we face great difficulties (and it sure helps to have a Ruth). Our faith will spill over to those people closest to us.
When Naomi saw that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped trying to persuade her. (1:18)
Getting Started: Things to Think About
Family Ties.
I’m sure we will all admit to having people in our family who drive us batty. But I’m also sure that we will let family members “get away” with things we would never let anyone else. Pose the question this way: What would you do for a family member that you aren’t sure you would do for a stranger? (I’m thinking things like let so-and-so live in your house for an extended period of time, loan a car for a long time, donate a kidney.) And then ask this: What is the line that you won’t cross even for a family member? (For example, I know people who would cover up a crime for a family member; I wouldn’t do that.)
And then here’s where it gets fun. How do you determine who your family is? This week, we learn about Naomi and Ruth. Ruth was the daughter-in-law, and yet she gave up her blood family to stay with Naomi. Do any of you have a closer relationship with your in-laws than your blood? Or, have you found (as many have) that your church family is actually closer to you than your blood relatives?
There are lots of ways you can go about this, but I certainly think that “family bonds” would be an easy way to get people talking.
The Most Vulnerable in Any Society.
I got this directly from the World Health Organization: “Vulnerability is the degree to which a population, individual or organization is unable to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impacts of disasters. Children, pregnant women, elderly people, malnourished people, and people who are ill or immunocompromised, are particularly vulnerable when a disaster strikes, and take a relatively high share of the disease burden associated with emergencies. Poverty – and its common consequences such as malnutrition, homelessness, poor housing and destitution – is a major contributor to vulnerability.” That’s absolutely correct, but let’s add to it. Read that to your group and then ask them what other factors might bring additional risk to a person. Here’s what I came up with: people who don’t have family support to help them with doctor visits or supplies; people who don’t have the education to know or understand the resources available to them for help, people who don’t speak the language and thus are naturally isolated, and people who are hindered from access to help (like children who are kept as prisoners in their homes, etc.).
What do we have in the book of Ruth? An (at-that-time) elderly widow foreigner. Is it any wonder that she thought it would be better to be destitute in Israel than in Moab where she would at least know the language and customs? I have some friends who have been serving abroad for a long time and who say that they will likely stay in that place until they die. I wonder what circumstance (or tragedy) might bring them back to the States that they haven’t foreseen. So—how hard must it be for those people who have spent everything they have to come to the USA and have no way to return “home” if things don’t work out here? Pray for them.
This Week's Big Idea: The Book of Ruth and the Dust Bowl
Our most recent generations know a little about the “dot com bubble” and the “housing bubble” and the “Great Recession” but they probably don’t know much about the pain and suffering of a true Depression. We have had pockets of tragedy in our country (my heart still breaks for those innocent employees of Enron), but there was a time when nearly 25% of Americans were out of work, when crop prices fell by 60%, and when construction and trade fell by 50%. Absolutely catastrophic. One of the most amazing anecdotal evidences of the tragedy is that half of Canadian Roman Catholics started using contraceptives to postpone births; the birthrate for the West dropped 12% during the Depression. But some families were hit with the double whammy of the Great Dust Bowl of the central prairies (think Grapes of Wrath). The same conditions that had led to the Great Depression—destabilization of the world economies following WWI combined with blind optimism of recovery—had led the government to encourage overcultivation of the great plains of the Midwest but with farming techniques that left the soil unstable. A combination of a severe multi-year drought and massive weather patterns brought on by changing ocean temperatures led to years of high winds that eventually ripped the topsoil off of the plains and sent it through the air. More than 3.5 million people had to abandon their homes; many moved to California where the Depression had made conditions not much better than in the plains. If your group has a sense of American history, these events should help them appreciate the plight of Naomi and Ruth (combined with being widows!). If they don’t know history, what a great opportunity to teach them about some things that we should never forget! The purpose of this exercise would be to set up the Book of Ruth; then, combine it with the lawlessness of Judges. What an awful time!
About the Book of Ruth
As with every book, I strongly encourage you to watch the Bible Project video for Ruth; download it and show it to your group! We only have two weeks with it, and it is one of the most important bridge stories in the entire Bible. The primary outcome that we take from this book is that Ruth and Boaz are King David’s great-grandparents. The point is that even when things could not look any bleaker (the utter ruin of Israel during the time of the judges combined with the region-wide famine that killed many) God was still working His great rescue plan.
Ruth has been called the most beautiful short story ever written. It takes place late in the time period of Judges (60-100 years before David). Few people today challenge its historicity because no one then would lie about a Moabite in the king’s family tree. Consequently, most scholars assume the author was someone close to David who would have known this amazing story. Ancient tradition says Samuel, but there is zero reason to defend that. All we know is the author was very knowledgeable, very skillful, and a true literary artist.
What is most unique about this book is that it focuses entirely on a single family in Bethlehem—absolutely no reference to Israel or to Jews as a group. And yet, the covenant that God made with Israel (and the many rules that David mentioned without going into detail) are necessary to understanding this book, particularly the rule about letting the poor glean the fields and those related to the kinsman-redeemer. It is an utterly Jewish story that makes no sense apart from the Law and Covenant. That is so much so that the only real debates about this book today come from how we interpret and apply Jewish law! (What was Naomi’s relationship to her family’s land? Why did her nearest relative refuse to marry her? How did Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor fit the rules?) We do have to remember that in that society women had approximately zero rights, so the loss of their husbands was catastrophic to their outlook and it makes Boaz (an eligible bachelor) a key figure. But there are three things that give us hope in this story against the depressing background. (1) Naomi was devoted enough to her God that Ruth chose to forsake her family gods to join Naomi. (2) Ruth was such a strong and faithful person as to overcome Naomi’s pain. (3) Boaz was such a devout and righteous man as to remind us that not everybody in the land was wicked and corrupt. God has told us that He always preserves a remnant. This book is proof of that!
Bonus Big Idea: Moab
The Moabites came from Lot by his oldest daughter (the Ammonites from his youngest daughter; Gen 19:30-38), and so the Israelites considered them relatives. Many times in the Bible we see them have peaceful interchanges (like during the time of Ruth); God commanded the Israelites not to attack Moab on their way to the Promised Land (but the king of Moab hired Balaam to curse Israel, and they refused Israel passage on the main “king’s highway”). When there was conflict, it was often about the area north of the Arnon River (claimed by Moab before claimed by Reuben). The one major extrabiblical evidence we have of Moab—the “Moabite Stone”— is a record of King Mesha overthrowing the occupation by Israel’s King Omri of that northern region. Moab was ultimately destroyed by Babylon, never again to exist as a people. Much of Moab is primarily arid and rocky, but there are a few “fields” where the winter snows keep the soil rich and fertile, and then there is the eastern side of the Jordan river valley and the various tributaries of the Arnon. Elimelech (Naomi’s husband) would have taken his family to those fertile fields at the root of the mountains of Moab, well south of the Arnon. Moab’s national god was “Chemosh”, though we don’t really know anything distinct about him. We know that Solomon had Moabite wives and that he tolerated the worship of Chemosh in Jerusalem. People in Moab also worshiped Baal, and that was the cause of God’s great anger in Numbers 25, when Moabite women seduced Israelite men and led into Baal worship.
Part 1: A Desperate Return (1:6-10)
She and her daughters-in-law prepared to leave the land of Moab, because she had heard in Moab that the Lord had paid attention to His people’s need by providing them food. She left the place where she had been living, accompanied by her two daughters-in-law, and traveled along the road leading back to the land of Judah. She said to them, “Each of you go back to your mother’s home. May the Lord show faithful love to you as you have shown to the dead and to me. May the Lord enable each of you to find security in the house of your new husband.” She kissed them, and they wept loudly. “No,” they said to her. “We will go with you to your people!”
Look, also read the first 5 verses in your group. I have no idea why they didn’t just include those verses. They make the whole story quite easy to follow. Use whatever information I’ve given you or the leader guide gave you to introduce the setting. Just make sure to point everybody back to the last words of Judges: “In those days, Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” Foreshadowing much?
Two questions can probably help you explain what’s going on:
(1) What was Naomi feeling? Foolish? Betrayed? Cursed? Bitter? Sad? She’s certainly bitter toward God, but in a Job kind of way, not in a Job’s wife kind of way (if you have to explain that reference to your group, it’s worth it).
(2) Why did Naomi send her daughters-in-law away? For their welfare? Out of self-pity? To test them? Not to impose?
You see, the book of Ruth is a love story on multiple levels. There is the love between Ruth and Boaz (that’s next week) which is what most people think about and that God used to bring us to King David and beyond. There is the intergenerational love between Ruth and Naomi (but see the sidebar) which should inspire and encourage us beyond measure. But there is also the loving faithfulness that God had written into His laws for His people: that of care for widows and orphans, for the poor, and for one’s own family. Boaz exemplifies that, even though he wasn’t supposed to be the primary person for that.
We’re going to find out that Naomi was bitter toward God, and yet that didn’t stop her from returning to Judah in the hopes that God would take care of her. This might be really important for some of your group members to catch: it is possible to be bitter toward God and still trust Him. We don’t know how long Naomi was in her destitute state, but we know that eventually she experienced the joy from this hope and trust she still had in God.
Also make sure to highlight the relationship Naomi had with her daughters-in-law. They were willing to leave their homes to travel with her to an unknown future. That says something profound about the type of woman Naomi was and how she treated those young ladies. Our community (and really our country) is marked too heavily by antagonistic relations between generations. Talk about positive relationships you have with people of a different age. Why do they work? What can you take from them to help others build positive such relationships?
But eventually, maybe as they were about to cross the Arnon, Naomi decides that the women would be better of staying in Moab. That’s a huge sacrifice for Naomi; it exposes her to even more danger and uncertainty. But she offered a blessing to them—further proof that she still trusted God—and used the key word “security”. I shouldn’t have to remind you that women were second-class citizens in that culture; the legal protection of a husband was paramount for health and safety.
I also want you to highlight the word “faithful love”. That’s a covenant term that shows up throughout the Old Testament, translated variously as mercy, kindness, loving-kindness, and steadfast love. It’s the kind of love that cannot be explained but that we see between devoted family members. That is the love that God has for His people. But notice that Naomi wishes it toward some Moabites! Naomi has seen their manner of life and believes them worthy of God’s love. We can hope that for every person! We’ll get to Ruth’s superior response momentarily.
Aside: Names in the Book of Ruth
Names mean something in the Bible more than they tend to mean in our language today. In the passage immediately following our lesson, Naomi says to call her “Mara”. Why? “Naomi” means “pleasant” and “Mara” means “bitter”. How do you think she thought of herself at that time? Name changes were common in the Old Testament to reflect changed circumstances: Gen 17:5, 32:38, 35:18, 41:15; Num 13:16, 2 Ki 24:17, and Dan 1:7 (for example, God renamed “Jacob” to “Israel” which means “wrestles with God”).
We can’t take much from the names of Ruth and Orpah (being non-Hebrew), and the other men are somewhat ambiguous: Boaz is related to the word for “strength”, Mahlon to the word for “ill” and Kilion to the word for “finished”. We really don’t know for certain what they mean, and I find that really interesting. Perhaps it implies that the naming had been mixed with conventions from other cultures. Or perhaps Naomi’s life hadn’t ever been that great.
But my favorite use of a name in this book is a non-name: the kinsman-redeemer. In 4:1, Boaz says to him “Come here, friend, and sit down” (NIV). But that’s not really what he said! The Hebrew literally reads “Mr. So-and-so”! It was a Hebrew idiom. That’s almost certainly not a quote from Boaz (he knew the guy’s name), but it was a deliberate choice by the author not to identify the kinsman-redeemer by name. I believe he did so because it was shameful for the kinsman-redeemer to fail to fulfill his responsibility to Elimelech, therefore he did not deserve to have his name included in this story (and thus in the Bible).
Part 2: A Bitter Plea (1:11-14)
But Naomi replied, “Return home, my daughters. Why do you want to go with me? Am I able to have any more sons who could become your husbands? Return home. Go on, for I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me to have a husband tonight and to bear sons, would you be willing to wait for them to grow up? Would you restrain yourselves from remarrying? No, my daughters, my life is much too bitter for you to share, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me.” Again they wept loudly, and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.
I have a number of questions here for which I can only speculate. Did Naomi think that the only reason the young women wanted to come with her was to find new husbands? Or was she deliberately trying to push them away? Did she have enough information about her husband’s relatives to think that they would be a bad match for the women? (On a side note, can you imagine how bizarre it would be to literally watch your husband grow up from infancy? Even if everybody had children really young (16-18), Naomi is at least in her late 40s by this time and the women are in their mid– to late-20s.) Well, Orpah took the hint and chose to leave, but not Ruth. I give you the context and controversy over the word “clung” in the sidebar. Do a Google search on that and you will find some disturbing interpretations. For our purposes, we realize it is the same word used to describe God’s commitment to His people in Deuteronomy.
I see this section largely as reinforcing the first, so I wouldn't spend too much extra time here.
Aside: Naomi and Ruth Were Not Gay
I covered this subject when we talked about David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel. I have heard that Lesbian weddings routinely hold up Ruth and Naomi as an example of a couple to aspire to. The primary argument is that the word used for “Ruth clung to Naomi” is the same word used in Gen 2:24 “A man shall cleave to his wife” (dabaq). Yep, it’s the same word. The word is also used in other scenarios of clinging—of bone to skin, of a hand to a sword, of a snake to the earth, of a tribe to its land. It is a term that refers to physical proximity (sometimes within the context of affection). But nowhere do we see Adam’s relationship with Eve reduced to that term, or that the term does not have a wide range of meaning. Ruth loved Naomi with a deep love, just as David loved Jonathan, and just as God loves us. It is so discouraging that we always have to see such relationships forced into sexual terms when it is so much more beautiful for us to see love between people the way God intends us to love everyone (1 Cor 13).
Part 3: A Lifelong Promise (1:15-18)
Naomi said, “Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her god. Follow your sister-in-law.” But Ruth replied: “Do not persuade me to leave you or go back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go, and wherever you live, I will live; your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May Yahweh punish me, and do so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” When Naomi saw that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped trying to persuade her.
And now the payoff—two stubborn women in a standoff. Just kidding. Naomi’s commitment to the women’s well-being had met a stronger commitment of Ruth to her. And this is where Ruth “gets” it: Naomi’s positive influence in her life means that she wants to emulate every part of her life, to her culture and to her religion. And so she offers 5 very simple promises that we pretty much all agree make up the finest declaration of lifelong commitment any of us could ever say. This passage and 1 Cor 13 appear in most Christian weddings (and many non-Christian ones), and please don’t miss this irony: neither of those passages have to do with a marriage relationship. They are about the kind of commitment that God intended all human beings to have for one another. (continued on back)
Reading Ruth’s commitment should make it clear why it is so popular at weddings. She covers physical proximity, social relationships, faith commitment, and the length of time (until death). Her final oath was a formulaic curse (1 Sam 3:17, 14:44, etc.) that literally reads “Thus may the Lord do to me, and thus may He add”. There might be a hand gesture that goes with the curse. One way or another, it convinced Naomi, and I have to believe that Naomi was secretly relieved.
There are so many directions you can take the point of this lesson! Pick the one that best fits your group. (1) You can talk about the challenges of moving to a new culture or changing families or a new school, pointing out that those moves can work if you have at least one very solid relationship (or you are good with God). (2) You can talk about the importance of a faith community (today, we call it a church). What do you need to do to better settle into our church? (3) You can illustrate the two-way nature of the strongest relationships (not just one person doing all of the clinging) in a few ways. Take one thread and see how hard it is to break. Then take two threads, twist them together, and see how hard they are to break. Then take three threads, braid them together, and see how hard they are to break. (You can look this up under “physics of ropes”.) Or do the fun balloon/hair static electricity experiment with the explanation “A balloon can’t stick to just anything—it has to be something able to ‘donate’ electrons. Likewise we can’t stick to God without God holding us to Him.” (4) Or just talk about relationships. Who in your life has been a Naomi or a Ruth? Do you need either one of those right now? And probably even more importantly—have you ever been a Naomi or a Ruth to someone? Do you know someone who needs a Naomi or a Ruth, and what can you do about it? (5) Or you can dwell on Naomi’s life situation. Things were bad—desperately bad—and she was bitter, but she kept her faith, and in the end that saved her, saved Ruth, and led directly to King David. Encouraging?
Comments