Articles
Moabites and Israelites: Race and Symbolism in the Book of Ruth
The Book of Ruth, despite being only four chapters, is an incredibly insightful and deep story about Israel at the time period of the Judges. Much could be said about Ruth’s loyalty and care for her mother-in-law, about Boaz’ covenant faithfulness and grace towards the weak, and certainly about God’s providential care for His people. Yet the most important character in the narrative is the one who sometimes is the most overlooked; Naomi is the central character in both the introduction and the conclusion, and her actions and mental state are the focal point of much of the book’s story. Our very first picture of Naomi is not a positive one; her husband, Elimelech, and Naomi decide to flee their inheritance in Bethlehem of Judah due to famine in the region. While this might seem an understandable reaction it is important to remember how much emphasis has been placed in the Old Testament to this point on the Promised Land; when Abraham flees Canaan due to a famine to go to Egypt, the terrible story of Sarai and the Pharaoh occurs. Israelites are not supposed to leave their inheritance, but trust in the Lord to save them! Yet Elimelech, whose name ironically means “God is King,” and Naomi fail to trust in the Lord and flee to Moab, a decidedly ungodly nation. Their family is ruined by this decision, as both Elimelech dies in this foreign territory. His two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, quickly meet the same fate (which continues the trend of ironic names, as their names mean “Sickness” and “Wasting,” respectively), leaving Naomi alone with her two daughters-in-law.
While it could potentially be argued that Naomi might not have had much involvement in Elimelech’s decision to flee Israel, Naomi’s actions in Ruth 1:6-18 solidify her initial negative portrayal. She decides to return to Israel, although it is only because food has returned rather than a loyalty to God or His covenant promises. As she leaves, however, she tells both her daughters to stay in Moab and return to their mothers’ houses. While her initial statement in vs. 8 seems righteous (she invokes Yahweh’s name multiple times in blessing Ruth and Orpah), her true sentiments are revealed in vs. 13: “It is harder for me than for you, for the hand of the Lord has gone forth against me.” While she may say the right things by invoking God to bless her daughters, she reveals how she actually feels about Yahweh: He is an adversary who has caused her misfortune! So dire is her faith, in fact, that she tells Ruth in vs. 15 “Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” Now Naomi is not only blaming Yahweh for her family downfall, but she’s actively telling Ruth to return to idolatry and worship the Moabite deity Chemosh rather than Yahweh! Remember, the Mosaic Law was very open to non-Israelites worshipping Yahweh and renouncing foreign gods and identity in favor of service to the one true God (Leviticus 16:29; 17:8-9; 22:18). Ruth and Orpah would have been allowed to come to the Promised Land and be a part of the covenant promises of Yahweh, yet Naomi is actively trying to persuade them to stay out.
The most surprising part of all of this is that Ruth shows far more faith than Naomi; her speech in vs. 16-17 has her explicitly pledging her allegiance both to Naomi and Yahweh, and vowing not to forsake either one of them on pain of death. Unfortunately, Ruth’s positive example does not rub off on Naomi as she merely ignores Ruth in vs. 18 and then berates her kinsmen in Bethlehem for calling her Naomi. As we mentioned with the three men of this family, all of their names are quite ironic and Naomi continues this pattern; Naomi means “pleasant,” but she wants to change her name to Mara (“bitter”) to reflect her broken faith. She once again blames Yahweh for her condition, and tells the town that “the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has witnessed against me and the Almighty has afflicted me?” (Ruth 1:20-21).
The second chapter predominantly focuses on the initial meeting between Ruth the Moabitess (that title will be important later!) and Boaz, and things seem to go extraordinarily well for Ruth. Even Naomi seems to be uplifted by the goodness of Boaz, and twice calls blessings from Yahweh upon Boaz for his kindness and advises Ruth to stay close to him for her own safety. Yet Ruth 3:1-5 sees Naomi return as a central character, and not in a good way. All of her commands are used elsewhere in the OT with sexual overtones (wash and anoint – Ezekiel 16:8-9; eat and drink – Exodus 32:6; Song of Songs 5:1; 2 Samuel 11:13; uncover his feet – Genesis 9:21; Leviticus 18:6; lie down – Genesis 19:32-33; Leviticus 2:11), and there are numerous connections between what Naomi is commanding and two other Biblical texts: Genesis 19 with Lot and Genesis 38 with Tamar. These two textual connections are particularly significant given the familial connections: Ruth is a Moabitess, which was a nation that originated in the incest between Lot and his daughter, and Naomi is a Judahite, which was a tribe descended from Judah’s son via his daughter-in-law Tamar. These texts inform us of what exactly is going on: like Tamar, Naomi is looking for an heir to replace her lost sons through a Levirite Marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) between Ruth and Boaz. Similarly to Tamar, who goes up to Judah while shearing the sheep, Ruth is sent at the conclusion of an agricultural milestone of harvest time. Ruth, in being a Moabite, bears marked similarity to the daughters of Lot in this occasion: Boaz has been drinking like Lot, he is alone like Lot, and he is under the cover of night and unaware of his female companion like Lot. On top of these connections, every appearance of Moabitesses to this point in the text has been of a seducer: they are the women who seduce Israelite men at Baal Peor (Numbers 25:2), and a marriage to a Moabitess was considered sinful for Israelite men (Deuteronomy 23:3). Naomi’s plan should set off huge alarm bells in our head, and the reader is almost forced to question whether Ruth – who has seemed so faithful – is going to fall to the pattern of seduction, particularly when the text says “Ruth did just what her mother-in-law had commanded her,” (Ruth 3:6).
Again, however, Ruth proves to be far more faithful than Naomi. She does exactly what Naomi says, but does not do what she has heavily implied. She instead literally uncovers Boaz’ feet and lies down, and when Boaz awakes she pointedly does not identify herself an Moabitess and give any ideas: unlike most mentions of Ruth to this point in the story, she is now “Ruth your maid.” Rather than waiting for Boaz to tell her what to do (as Naomi had suggested), but instead tells Boaz to fulfill his covenant obligation by marrying her! Boaz certainly recognizes the dangerous implications that Naomi has made (notice in 3:13 he takes steps to protect Ruth’s innocence and reputation), but he follows Ruth’s command rather than Naomi’s implication. The narrative then remains on Boaz and his efforts at redemption before reaching the conclusion in chapter 4. It is in the final chapters that Naomi’s negative character is confirmed for us: as Ruth gives birth to a son, the women of Bethlehem tell Naomi, “Blessed is the Lord who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better than seven sons, has given birth to him,” (Ruth 4:14-15). Acting almost as a divine chorus, Naomi’s kinsmen glorify God for the blessings He has brought on Naomi’s house in contrast to her earlier declarations of Yahweh emptying her and destroying her. Perhaps the story has a happy ending for Naomi?
Notice, however, the very next verse: “Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi!” So they named him Obed.” The Message Bible (yes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally) actually renders the surprise of this statement well: “The neighborhood women started calling him “Naomi’s baby boy!” But his real name was Obed.” The women, who have just been singing the praise of Ruth for his faithfulness, react with surprise at Naomi taking the child, to the point of questioning whether he’s Ruth’s son or Naomi’s! What’s going on here? Notice two verses: Genesis 16:1-4 has Sarai and Abram producing a son/heir through a proxy (Hagar) when they are unable to conceive, while Genesis 30:1-3 has Rachel requesting a similar process through her maid Bilhah “giv[ing] birth on my knees, that even I may have children through her.” So we see what Naomi is trying to do: like Sarai and Rachel, she has tried to use a subordinate woman to bear a child when she is unable to, and “lays him on her lap” as an act of claiming the boy as her own. This is why the women so surprisingly call the boy “Naomi’s Boy!” After just singing the praises of Ruth for being better than a son, Naomi has treated her daughter-in-law as a mere slave vessel to bring her a son.
The story, however, does not end at Naomi’s attempt. Obed is not recorded as the son of Mahlon, son of Elimelech; instead, God’s inspired writer lists him as “the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon.” Naomi’s attempt has failed, and the boy is not hers. So, why is all of this significant? We see in the characters of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz symbolic representations of three different groups of people. Naomi (and her family) reminds us of the Israel we have seen developed in Judges: unfaithful to Yahweh, disobedient and bitter grumblers, and conniving cheats constantly seeking to gain their own desires at the expense of others. They are a people that forsake God’s promises and then bitterly complain that God has been unfair to them when the consequences come. Boaz, on the other hand, represents the faithful Israel that we’ve seen mere glimpses of through the narrative so far: strong men of faith and character who have been transformed by Yahweh and His Law into people of grace, mercy, and justice. Boaz reminds us of men such as Moses and Joshua, and shows us that there are still Israelites who are following Yahweh in great faith. Ruth, then, represents the most surprising group of people: the faithful foreigner. The non-Israelites who have turned completely to faith in Yahweh and forsaken the gods and cultures of their former peoples: we are reminded by Ruth of Rahab, in particular. And, like Rahab, we are shown the product of faithful Israel and faithful foreigners: King David! Coming off the terrible ending of Judges, where the line “In those days there was no King,” echoes constantly through the carnage, the foreshadowing of King David shows us that Yahweh is still working to save His faithful people despite the hard-heartedness of Israel. We as readers also know that this union of faithful Israel and faithful foreigner will also produce the full coming of King David in King Jesus, who redeems the people (like Ruth and Boaz!) who place their full trust in Yahweh and His covenant promises. In the characters of this narrative, then, we are reminded of what is truly important: not lineage or physical descendants, like Naomi is sadly obsessed with, but faithfulness to God!
