Chapter One

1–6. The migration of the Bethlehemite Elimelech with his household to the land of Moab and the calamities that befell the family there. 7–22. The return of Naomi with her daughter-in-law Ruth to the Holy Land and their arrival in Bethlehem.

Ruth 1:1. In those days when the judges ruled, there came a famine in the land. And a man from Bethlehem in Judah went with his wife and his two sons to live in the fields of Moab. The time of the events described in the book of Ruth is determined by general and indefinite dates: “when the judges ruled,” i.e., during one of the moments of the period of Judges (which, according to Acts 13:20, lasted for years) and when “a famine came upon the land” (i.e., in Palestine, the land of Israel), which visited the Holy Land repeatedly in biblical times (for example, Gen 12:10; 2 Sam 21:1). Both dates have not so much a chronological meaning as they indicate the character of the time of Judges, the absence then of a centralizing state power among the Hebrews (cf. Judg 17:6), when each member of the people was left to his own devices and in times of public calamity—famine (as here), enemy raids, etc.—had to act at his own risk, himself ensuring his own welfare (cf. Judg 18:1); in just such a manner Elimelech acts here, forsaking his native Bethlehem and withdrawing with his family to a foreign land, the land of Moab, “to sojourn there” (the Hebrew verb gur, cf. Gen 12:10; Judg 17:7; Lam 4:15), from which “ger”—sojourner, proselyte). The rabbinic interpretation justly reproaches Elimelech for forsaking his “brothers” (fellow citizens, compatriots), seeing in the misfortunes and death of Elimelech in a foreign land the divine punishment for him for forsaking the Holy Land (D. Midrasch Ruth Rabba, in German trans. by A. Wunsche, Leipzig, 1883, p. 15). On the contrary, rabbinic attempts to determine the time of Elimelech’s migration are arbitrary and unsuccessful, for instance, they placed this event at the time of Barak and Deborah (Judg 4-5, regarding “judges” (shophtem) Ruth 1:1 as indicating Deborah, Barak, and Jael), at the time of Judge Ehud (Judg 3:15-30), in whose contemporary Eglon, king of Moab, they saw Ruth’s father; they also attributed it to the time of Judge Ibzan (successor of Jephthah), with whom they identified Boaz, on the ground that both lived in Bethlehem (Ruth 2:1-4, cf. Judg 12:8), etc. (Midr. Ruth Rabba, p. 10, 19). In reality, the only point of support for determining the time of the events described in the book of Ruth can be only the genealogy of David given here (Ruth 4:17-22): according to it, David was the great-grandson of Boaz and Ruth through Obed and Jesse, consequently the period of time elapsed from the events of Ruth was approximately more than a hundred years, which is confirmed also by the testimony of Josephus, who attributes the migration of Elimelech (Ἀβιμέλεχος, according to Josephus) to the years of the rule of Judge and High Priest Eli (“Jewish Antiquities” V, 9, 1–4). Bethlehem (Hebrew Bet-lechem—“house of bread”), formerly (Gen 35:16) called Ephrathah (Hebrew Ephratah—“fruitful”), but subsequently also retaining the ancient name with a synonymous later one (Ruth 4:11; Mic 5:2), lay, to judge from the name itself, in one of the most fertile regions of Palestine; according to Eusebius and blessed Jerome, at 6 Roman miles, i.e., about 8 versts (the Roman mile equals 694 sazhens), to the south of Jerusalem (Onomastic. 260; Russian trans. Prav. Palest. Sbora, vol. 37, p. 41), which is fully confirmed by the distance of the present village of Bethlehem, in Arabic Bet-Lahm (with 7000 exclusively Christian population), from Jerusalem (see, for example, Cuerin, Description de la Palestine 1868, I, 120 sqq. Cf. Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky, “Holy Land,” Vol. II, Kiev, 1878, p. 73 and onward). By Gospel times and of course much earlier, Bethlehem was commonly called the city of David (Luke 2:4), not without the influence of the account in Ruth (cf. Ruth 4:17-22). In distinction from another Bethlehem—in the tribe of Zebulun (Josh 19:15), the Bethlehem, the future birthplace of David, is named here Ruth 1:1, and in 1 Sam 17:12; Mic 5:2 as Bethlehem of Judah, Slavonic “Bethlehem of Judah” (Hebrew Bet-lechem Iehudah).

Ruth 1:2. The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion; they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. And they came into the fields of Moab and remained there. The family of Elimelech was very well-known in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:19) and had relative wealth (Ruth 1:21). The very name Elimelech (from Hebrew “my God is king”), according to some, indicates the noble origin of the person bearing this name. By origin, this name is justly compared with the name of a Hittite prince (in southern Palestine) Ilimliki or Milkili, mentioned in the Tell Amarna letters (cuneiform scripts discovered in Egypt in 1887–1888). Josephus transmits the name Elimelech as Ἀβιμελέχος, thus associating Elimelech with the name of Philistine kings. The names of Elimelech’s wife Naomi and of both his sons are also very significant. Naomi, Hebrew Noomi—“pleasant, agreeable, happy” (cf. Ruth 1:20, where this name is contrasted in meaning with another: “Mara”—“bitter”), for, as the Midrash notes (p. 17), “her deeds were beautiful and agreeable.” Mahlon and Chilion (Slavonic Maalon and Kheleon) are interpreted by some (Midrash, cited loc.; Geiger, p. 50) as “sickness and wasting” (from Hebrew Chalah and Kalah), which might be designated by the early death (Ruth 1:5) of both sons of Elimelech (Midr. cited loc.). However, such correspondence of meanings of names (though this is still disputed due to different meanings assigned to the same name) does not argue against the historical significance of Ruth, since such coincidence is doubtless unintentional. “Ephrathites,” Slavonic “Ephrathaeans,”—the same as “Bethlehemites” (cf. 1 Sam 17:12, where the Ephrathite Jesse is named), inhabitants of Bethlehem, the ancient Ephrathah, and not at all “Ephraimites” (cf. Judg 12:5; 1 Kgs 11:26; 1 Sam 1:1), as the Midrash mistakenly understands it (p. 17).

Ruth 1:3. And Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she remained with her two sons. Elimelech died in the land of Moab, probably soon after arriving there, and the marriage of his sons took place already after his death. Naomi remained a widow, “like the remnant of a bloodless offering” (Midrash, p. 18).

Ruth 1:4. And they took for themselves wives from the Moabitesses; the name of one was Orpah, and the name of the other was Ruth, and they lived there about ten years. Ruth 1:5. But then both her sons, Mahlon and Chilion, died as well, and the woman remained after both her sons and after her husband. The death of the father did not impel the family to return; on the contrary, both sons of Elimelech now became even more firmly established in the foreign land: they married Moabitesses: the elder, Mahlon, married Ruth (Ruth 4:10), and the second, Chilion, married Orpah. The meanings of the names of Naomi’s daughters-in-law are understood differently. Orpah (Hebrew Orpah, LXX: Ορφά), according to the Midrash (p. 19), was so named because she turned her back (oreph) on her mother-in-law, i.e., abandoned her (Ruth 1:14; cf. Jer 2:27); Gesenius derives this name from the Arabic root urf—“mane”; Simonis connects it with ophrah—“hind.” Ruth (Hebrew Ruth) in the Talmud (Baba Batra 14b) is interpreted: “one who refreshes” (from the verb ravah): “for from her came David, who refreshed the Holy One with psalms”; in the Midrash (p. 19): “one who showed care” for her mother-in-law (from the verb raah, to see, to regard); but most commonly accepted (Gesenius, Geiger, Philippson, and others) is the derivation from gea—kinsman, feminine form reuth, kinswoman (i.e., closely related, loving in relation to Naomi); this latter derivation has in its favor the reading of the Syriac translation (Reuth). The marriage to foreign and idolatrous women (Ruth 1:15), forbidden by law (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3), cf. regarding the Moabites (Deut 23:3, Judg 10:6), the Targum and generally the Jewish tradition consider to be the cause of the early and childless death of Mahlon and Chilion, though, for the sake of the exalted significance of Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, it holds that the prohibition (Deut 23:3) to receive Moabites into the assembly of the Lord applies to the male sex of this people; as is evident from Ruth 1:16, Ruth embraced the faith of Israel only after the death of her husband and after Naomi’s return to Bethlehem. Ten years probably lasted the famine in Israel, and as long lasted the married life of Naomi’s sons (v. 4).

Ruth 1:6. And she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the fields of Moab, for she heard in the fields of Moab that the Lord had visited His people and given them bread. Ruth 1:7. And she went out from the place where she lived, and both her daughters-in-law with her. As they were going on the way, returning to the land of Judah, After the death of Mahlon and Chilion, the family became impoverished. Then Naomi learns that Jehovah, as He sent fertility or famine to Israel according to Her faithfulness or unfaithfulness to Him (Deut 28:47-48), “visited,” “paqad,” (cf. Gen 21:1; Exod 4:31; 1 Sam 2:21), i.e., with mercy—bestowing a harvest of grain, and immediately she abandons the Moabite land and sets out, in the company of both her daughters-in-law, to Judah.

Ruth 1:8. And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each to the house of her mother; may the Lord show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to the dead and to me! Ruth 1:9. May the Lord grant that you find rest, each in the house of her husband! And she kissed them. But they wept aloud As they approached the border between the land of Moab and the land of Judah, Naomi tries to persuade her daughters-in-law to return to the homes of their parents (according to the LXX, Slavonic, “house of her father,” but Hebrew, Russian: “house of her mother”—an indication of the particular significance of the mother in primitive life organization, cf. Gen 24:28; Song 3:4); at least Ruth’s father was still alive then (Ruth 2:11). All of Naomi’s speech and the responses of her daughters-in-law reveal relations between them and their mother-in-law that can only be called ideal. With firm faith in Divine Providence (this faith runs through the whole narrative of Ruth) Naomi expresses gratitude to her daughters-in-law for their kind treatment of the dead husbands and of her mother-in-law herself, wishes them Jehovah’s mercies, thus expressing the faith that the power and action of Jehovah are not limited to the boundaries of Israel and His land but extend to other peoples, to all the world, and magnanimously advises them to enter into new marriages, desiring “peace” (Hebrew “menuchah,” v. 9) for them in the homes of future husbands (cf. Ruth 3:2).

Ruth 1:10. And they said, “No, we will return with you to your people. However, Ruth and Orpah express the desire to follow their beloved mother-in-law to Judah.

Ruth 1:11. And Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters; why would you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb who could become your husbands? Ruth 1:12. Turn back, my daughters, go, for I am too old to be married. Even if I had hope, even if I were married this very night and then bore sons, Ruth 1:13. could you wait until they grew up? Could you refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, my heart is very bitter for you, for the hand of the Lord has struck me. In her response, Naomi proceeds from the ancient Hebrew view that a woman’s highest calling and happiness is to be a mother (cf. Gen 24:60) and, moreover, she has in view the ancient Hebrew custom (found also among other peoples—Indians, Persians, Circassians, etc.) of levirate marriage (Gen 38:7-11; Deut 25:5-10; cf. Josephus “Jewish Antiquities” IV, 8, 23, cf. Ruth 4:10). From this perspective, the daughters-in-law’s following Naomi is regarded by her as futile: she has no sons and will have none who could replace for Ruth and Orpah the dead Mahlon and Chilion, so there is no hope for them in Israel; yet, according to Naomi’s words, her own position is still more bitter (Hebrew mar, v. 13) than theirs, for they lost only husbands and may hope for new marriages, while she lost husband, children, possessions and moreover has no view to a better future: it is evident that “the hand of Jehovah (striking) has struck her” (v. 13).

Ruth 1:14. And they raised their voices and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law [and returned to her people], but Ruth remained with her. Ruth 1:15. [Naomi] said [to Ruth], “Behold, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and to her gods; return you also after your sister-in-law. Naomi’s exhortations affected Orpah, and she, perhaps fearing the hardships awaiting her in Naomi’s company, preferred to return “to her people and to her gods” (v. 15), i.e., to the worship of Chemosh (Num 21:29; Jer 48:13) and other Moabite deities (according to the Targum, “to god”—singular, so some ancient interpreters saw here the True God, which is, however, incorrect in view of the fact that this applies (v. 16) only to Ruth, in evident contrast with Orpah (v. 15).

Ruth 1:16. But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you and turn back from you; but 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; Ruth 1:17. and where you die, I will die and be buried; may the Lord do to me and add to me; death alone will separate me from you. Ruth 1:18. [Naomi,] seeing that she was determined to go with her, stopped urging her. But the word of Naomi produced the opposite effect on Ruth. Now spoke the “love strong as death” (Song 8:6): from love to Naomi, she not only promises to cleave unseparated to her in every place and in every circumstance, but with all the force of persuasion acknowledges her people—Israel—as her own people, the God of Israel—as her own God, i.e., according to the interpretation of the Midrash (p. 24), she declares herself a proselyte, joining both the faith and the nationality of Israel (cf. Bertholet, Stellung der Isr. u. Juden zu den Fremden, p. 28). Only death can separate her from Naomi, but even then the dust of both should lie in one tomb. All this Ruth affirmed with a solemn expression (customary in the books of Kings, for instance, 1 Sam 3:17; 2 Sam 3:35), in the Slavonic text (more accurately than the Russian translation, which passes over the literal text): “thus may the Lord do to me, and thus may He add.” Then Naomi ceased her exhortations, silently consenting to her.

Ruth 1:19. And the two of them went until they came to Bethlehem. And when they came to Bethlehem, the whole city was in commotion about them, and the women said, “Is this Naomi? Ruth 1:20. She said to them, “Do not call me Naomi, but call me Mara, because the Almighty has sent me great bitterness; Ruth 1:21. I went out from here with plenty, but the Lord has brought me back with empty hands; why call me Naomi, when the Lord has made me suffer, and the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me? The arrival of Naomi in Bethlehem after a ten-year absence, especially without a husband and sons, naturally made an impression on the probably small population, and particularly the women with astonishment said (Hebrew tomarnah, feminine gender): “Is this Naomi?” (the Greek-Slavonic translation is more exact than the Vulgate: “haec est illa Noemi” and the Russian). Hebrew Mara, Aramaic form Mara (LXX: Πικρά, Vulgate Amara, Slavonic “Bitter”), related to the name Mary, is opposite in meaning to the name Noomi, and this antithesis is expressed by Naomi in application to the circumstances of her life and suffering according to the will of the Almighty (Hebrew Shaddai).

Ruth 1:22. And Naomi returned, and with her came her daughter-in-law Ruth the Moabitess, who had come from the fields of Moab, and they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest. The arrival of Naomi and Ruth in Bethlehem took place “at the beginning of the barley harvest,” or the general harvest (since barley matures in Palestine before wheat)—about mid-April (see Ed. Robinson, Palestina 2 Vol., p. 504, 522, 597, 620, 668) or about the time of Passover (Targum: “at the arrival of Passover Day”), on the second day of which the first sheaf of the barley harvest was brought into the sanctuary (Lev 23:10-11); cf. Midr. 31. The date of arrival may (in connection with what follows; chapters II-III) suggest the nearness of Divine help to both women: the harvest gave occasion for the manifestation of God’s mercy to them through Boaz. * * * W. Nowack. Richter-Ruth. 1909, p. 186. Cf. Prof. I. O. Mukhin. The Condition of Palestine and Phoenicia in the Fifteenth Century before our Era... Kiev, 1899, p. 35 Many critical scholars (for example, Smend, Nowack, Benzinger) accept the so-called matriarchy, or matriarchal epoch, which supposedly preceded the patriarchal: if in the latter the father had governing significance in the family, then in the former the mother had it exclusively. But the Bible does not know such a cultural-historical stage in the development of the family and society, but simply acknowledges the fact of the primordial high significance of the mother in the patriarchal family alongside the preeminent significance of the father-patriarch (cf., for example Gen 16:1 and others). The Midrash (section 21) in explanation of the expression “house of mother” (v. 8) says: “a pagan does not have a father.” Pleasant. Bitter.