Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 3)

If so, this makes Orpah’s departure understandable.  If so, this makes Ruth’s clinging to Naomi even more remarkable, while providing a glimpse into what lay behind the language of the rest of her statement to Naomi, in which she says “Wherever you die, I will die---and there I will be buried.  May the Lord punish me severely if I do not keep my promise!  Only death will be able to separate me from you!” (1:17)  So against all probability, while Naomi thinks of the return to the promised land as an exile, Ruth looks forward to the end of exile and a joining together with the people of exodus in the land of the covenant God’s promise. 

With all of this under consideration---Naomi’s trepidation in returning to the land, combined with the knowledge of the famine and subjugation that was in effect when she left with her husband, it is with a touch of apparent irony that “they arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest” (1:22b).  Immediately, in her land of exodus---which is the place of the Creator God’s mission for her---“Ruth went and gathered grain in the fields behind the harvesters” (2:3a). 

This gathering, as the reader comes to find out, took place in “the field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech” (2:3c).  When Boaz speaks to Ruth, he treats her quite well, embodying the grace and kindness to resident foreigners that was demanded of Israel in the law of their God---because they too had been foreigners in Egypt.  Though the author does not speak of this, it underlies the story and the treatment, and serves as a reminder of the constant overt and subtle recalling of exodus by the various Biblical authors. 

Soon after, as Ruth gives Naomi a report of the day’s activities, as well as the favorable treatment from Boaz, “Naomi said to her, ‘This man is a close relative of ours; he is our guardian’.” (2:20b)  Later on, Ruth goes back to Boaz, proposing marriage and reminding him that he is “a guardian of the family’s interests” (3:9b).  The Hebrew word used here for “guardian” is “go’el,” which is used as both “kinsman” and “redeemer.”  This means that this is “deliverer” language, thus presenting Boaz in the mold of Moses, which places the story squarely in the center of the exile, exodus, and rescuing motif that is much of the sum and substance of the Scriptural message. 

As a guardian or a redeemer or a deliverer, Boaz agrees to Ruth’s proposal, and tells her that he will do what is necessary to become her and the family’s redeemer.  Before sending her away so that he can go and attend to this business, “he measured out about sixty pounds of barley into the shawl and put it on her shoulders” (3:15).  In this additional, favorable treatment by this redeemer (the one that was going to complete Ruth’s exodus and bring the family’s exile to an end), it could be said that Boaz went far beyond what either Ruth or Naomi would have asked or thought (Ephesians 3:20).    

As Boaz completes the transaction that will see him redeeming the estate of his kinsmen Elimelech, he says, “I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife to raise up a descendant who will inherit his property so the name of the deceased might not disappear from among his relatives and from his village” (4:10a).  In so doing, Boaz rescues the name of Elimelech from exile.  Almost immediately, the story of Ruth moves along to the fact that “The Lord enabled her to conceive and she gave birth to a son… They named him Obed.  Now he became the father of Jesse---David’s father!” (4:13b,17b) 

The marriage and the coming of a child marks the preservation of an inheritance within the land.  Because this is couched within the language of redemption (4:4-6), and because redemption is equated with exodus, all of these things serve as a reminder to both the witnesses and the later reader of this history, of the Creator God’s faithful, saving, covenant action on behalf of His people. 

Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 2)

It would appear that the plan had been for Naomi and her two daughters-in-law to return to the land of Judah.  To that end, it is reported that “as she and her two daughters-in-law began to leave the place where she had been living to return to the land of Judah” (Ruth 1:7).  This would indicate that all three were leaving their land of exile, and that all three were about to experience an exodus to the land of the covenant promise, with this being the case even though both Ruth and Orpah were Moabites and had not previously come from the region of Israel, and were not a part of the Creator God’s covenant people.  Of course, if one was to peruse the history of the Egyptian exodus, one would come to learn that there were non-Israelites that went out of Egypt with Israel, so this represents something of a re-playing of this as Naomi and the two women leave Moab. 

For some reason there is a change of heart on Naomi’s behalf as she “said to her two daughters-in-law ‘Listen to me!  Each of you should return to your mother’s home!  May the Lord show you the same kind of devotion that you have shown to your deceased husbands and to me!  May the Lord enable each of you to find security in the home of a new husband!’” (1:8-9a)  Clearly, making this statement was difficult for Naomi, as she then “kissed them goodbye and they wept loudly” (1:9b).  However, both were determined to return with Naomi, saying “No!  We will return with you to your people” (1:10). 

Naomi speaks again and this time is far more persistent, causing Orpah to accede to her wishes and demands as she kissed her goodbye, presumably returning to her mother’s home as directed.  However, as is known, “Ruth clung tightly to her” (1:14b).  Naomi protested Ruth’s actions, but upon her doing so, Ruth famously and stubbornly declared “Stop urging me to abandon you!  For wherever you go, I will go.  Wherever you live, I will live.  Your people will become my people, and your God will become my God” (1:16).  Ruth’s dogged determination to be a part of the exodus people won out and Naomi relented, so they returned together to Judah, and more specifically, to Bethlehem. 

When they did return, Naomi uses the language of exile and exodus, but seemingly in reverse, as she says “I left here full, but the Lord has caused me to return empty-handed” (1:21a).  It is possible that her bitterness (thus, the name change to Mara, or “bitter”) here had overwhelmed her, as she adds that “the Lord has opposed me, and the Sovereign One has caused me to suffer” (1:21b).  Apparently, she has forgotten that she left with her husband and children in a time of famine, and at a time at which it can be presumed that Israel was in subjugation.  It is possible that she saw their departure to Moab as an exodus, and had begun to think of Moab as home, rather than as a place of exile.  This might very well be the reason why she was so insistent that Orpah and Ruth stay in Moab, which in her own mind had become a place of fullness. 

Based on Ruth’s response to Naomi’s land and Naomi’s God, it seems reasonable to believe that Naomi attempted to paint a not-so-flattering picture of that land and of the Lord of that land, with tales of famine and oppression and death and judgment, in an attempt to convince Orpah and Ruth of the futility of going with her and the benefits of staying there in Moab.  Correspondingly, if her departure was an exodus, then she is now viewing her return home to Bethlehem in Judah as exile.  

Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 1)

In the first verse of the book of Ruth it is recorded that “During the time of the judges there was a famine in the land of Judah.  So a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to live as a resident foreigner in the region of Moab, along with his wife and two sons” (1:1).  Famine is an underlying issue.  Giving this some thought, one realizes that famine is an important theme of Scripture and the covenantal narrative, and it here presents itself on another occasion.  Famines can be seen in connection with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, and with Joseph. 

Thus the man being referenced here in Ruth, whose name was Elimelech, now stands in good company.  In dealing with a famine, he is now walking the familiar path that has been previously trod by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Elimelech, like these men, has voluntarily removed himself from the land of the Creator God’s promise.  When considering one of the overarching themes of all of Scripture, it can be noted that he is now in something of a self-imposed exile.  Along with that, it should be noted that the Scripture here offers no commentary on his departure from the promised land, but simply presents it as a matter of fact. 

While in this state of exile from the land that represents the covenant God’s faithful promises to His people, Elimelech died.  His death left his wife (Naomi) and two sons (Mahlon and Kilion) alone.  Rather than return to the land of Judah, “her sons married Moabite women (Orpah and Ruth).  And they continued to live there about ten years” (1:4).  Here, as one listens to this story as a member of the nation of Israel, it is possible to hear echoes of Jacob’s first departure from his father’s house, which came on the heels of what he believed to be his father’s impending death (because of Isaac’s insistence on blessing Esau before he died), as when Jacob was in the first of his exiles in Haran, two women were married and there was an extended dwelling away from the land of promise.  For Naomi, the pain of exile would grow, as her two sons went the way of their father, dying there in the land of Moab.  With this, she is described as being “bereaved of her two children as well as her husband” (1:5b). 

It was within this bereavement that Naomi “decided to return home from the region of Moab, accompanied by her daughters-in-law” (1:6a).  She decided to make this return journey “because while she was living in Moab she had heard that the Lord had shown concern for His people, reversing the famine by providing abundant crops” (1:6b).  This statement should serve as a reminder of the opening statement of the book and the famine mentioned therein “during the time of the judges.” 

Why would there have been a famine in Judah?  Well, if one believes in a covenant God that is faithful to His promises (according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy), and also believes in the repetitive record of the book of Judges, the famine is a curse related to Israel’s idolatry---doing evil in the sight of their Lord.  Famine points to exile, while also informing an observer that Elimelech’s flight to Moab, occurring during the time period covered by the book of Judges, was most likely undertaken during one of the periods of Israel’s subjugation to a foreign power.