Bitterness and friendship: a feminist exegesis of the Book of Ruth

Joseph W. Blotz

The Book of Ruth has been an object of contention for many feminist scholars of the Bible. While recognizing the great strides the book makes on behalf of women, scholars also recognize how far the work on a whole has fallen short of some feminist ideals.

Ruth is one of only two books in the Hebrew canon that bears the name of a woman. (1) It is the only book in which the main characters are women, strong women who take some control of their own destiny and situation. The text is filled with instances in which the female protagonists seek out solutions to their tribulations, which, in the end, they succeed in overcoming.

The text does, however, continue to operate within the patriarchal structure of ancient Israelite culture. In this context, these women have limited social standing and power. They persevere through acts of manipulation not only of the societal norms and the men in power but also of each other. This manipulation may include the physical subjugation of Ruth on the threshing-room floor in chapter 3.

There are two predominant ways in which feminist critics approach the Book of Ruth: that of recovery and that of resistance. The reading of recovery raises up the characters of Ruth and Naomi as models of women that can be emulated today. According to this view Ruth and Naomi exemplify friendship, loyalty, and Abrahamic fidelity. In the imagined dialogue that follows between two undergraduate students of the Old Testament, Shannon exemplifies this approach. The reading of resistance sees the text as so steeped in patriarchy that little if anything can be gleaned from it other than to study it as yet another example of the religious tradition's suppression of women. Ruth provides insights into how the biblical tradition is one of the roots of the continued oppression of women today. This is the view of Kara.

Dialogue

Kara: Hi, Shannon! Almost time for Old Testament class. Did you finish the reading?

Shannon: Yes, I did. Wasn't it great? Finally we have a story about strong women who take control of their own lives and situations.

K: You're kidding, right?

S: What do you mean, kidding?

K: This story was a step forward, I'll give you that, but it is still steeped in patriarchal language and views of women's roles. It embodies precisely what we need to move beyond. It had such promise. Ruth and Naomi could have been leaving that all behind, but then they have to go and look for a male relative to "redeem" them. I mean, what do they need redemption from?

S: Wait. If we are going to look at this text critically, can we at least start at the beginning?

K: That's fine with me. Look, from the start we are bogged down by the language of this writing. It says, "A man of Bethlehem in Judah and his wife and two sons" (1:1). Right away Naomi is defined by the men in her life. She is the man's wife and is not even listed as any relation to the sons. It's as if they were not even her children. And the situation gets only slightly better as we move on when she is actually named as Naomi, but still in terms of Elimelech as her husband (1:2). [Rosen 1994]

S: Think of how powerful that is. How many women were named in the Hebrew Scriptures?

K: Far too few.

S: I agree. That is why this text is so important. A name is power. The fact that Naomi has a name at all speaks of her strength and importance.

K: Yes, her importance in relation to another man, King David. Were it not for him we would not even have this story. [Hamlin 1996]

S: Come on, Kara, we're getting ahead of ourselves again.

K: All right, back to the first chapter.

S: Right. If you would have kept on reading you would have quickly seen that the tides soon change. In verse 3 Elimelech is called Naomi's husband, and now Naomi is left with "her two sons." It is also here that we first hear of Orpah and Ruth. It would seem that it is Naomi who arranged their marriages, as Elimelech was dead. She took control of her situation. Her sons needed wives and she found them. [Sohn 1994]

K: And then in verse 5 all that we thought we had gained is gone. Naomi is left without her husband, without her sons, and without her name. That tells me that the author saw Naomi's identity as being wrapped up not in who she was as a person but in who she was to the men around her. [Brenner 1999]

S: Yes, but let's look at the times. Most women were defined culturally by the men in their lives. Don't you see how even though the author tries to define them in these terms they still break out of traditional roles?

K: Shannon, as you would say, you're jumping ahead of yourself.

S: Right, sorry. So Naomi leaves Moab with her daughters-in-law ...

K: Where did their names go?

S: ... to return from the land of Moab (1:6).

K: And where are they going? In the whole of this verse we don't really hear where they are going until verse 7. Only at the end of that verse is Judah referred to as the place. [Sohn 1994]

S: I did some outside reading and discovered that the rabbis had something to say about that. They said that at the beginning of a journey it is easier to acknowledge what you are leaving than where you are going. Once on the trip you are focused on where you are heading, not where you have been. [Sohn 1994]

K: That makes sense.

S: So now we are at the part where Naomi asks Orpah and Ruth to return to Moab to their Mother's houses (1:8). They are told to go not to their father's house but to their mother's, for only a mother can understand the losing of a husband. [Sohn 1994]

K: Exactly, because not only did they lose their husbands, they lost everything else as well--home, land, name. These women literally had no standing in society. They had to rely on the charity of others. Naomi goes on to say in verse 12, "Have I any more sons in my body, who might be husbands for you?" The societal view of women's roles has been so ingrained into Naomi's way of thinking that she can hardly escape it. [Rosen 1994]

S: But remember that it would have been a brother's responsibility to marry the widow of his brother. (2) That's what she's talking about here.

K: Yes, but it goes so much deeper then that. Naomi sees herself as worthless and now good for nothing. She can't see how her daughters-in-law will be able to survive, because she can do nothing for them. Look at what the patriarchal system does to people. It debases them completely until they cannot see themselves as independently worth something.

S: So Orpah leaves (1:14-15). She knows that at home there is safety. Eventually she will be able to remarry and establish a new life for herself.

K: Do you really believe that someone would marry her? In that culture's eyes she's now an old woman at the age of twenty-three.

S: Tradition says that the Philistine Goliath is Orpah's great grandson. So it must not have been quite as out of the ordinary as we think. Now we get to one of my favorite parts of the book, when Ruth makes her oath of fidelity to Naomi (1:16-17). It is such a beautiful example of female bonds of friendship. No matter what these two women have been through they will stay together because of this unique bond. [Sohn 1994]

K: You could look at it that way, but I have another suggestion. Ruth is out of her mind. Read the text. Naomi says, "The hand of the Lord has struck out against me" (1:13). Now, is this someone you would want to be hanging around with? First her homeland is struck with famine. Then her husband dies. Finally, both of her sons die. I don't think I would stay too close. Orpah had the right idea: She ran! What makes me even more upset, however, at least if this is our reading, is Ruth's statement that Naomi's God will be her God. Naomi has just said how harshly God has dealt with her, and now Ruth is embracing the God of Israel as if nothing has happened?! [Rosen 1994]

S: It also tells us a great deal about what has been going on in Moab. Ruth, although living in an Israelite home, evidently has not adopted Israelite ways. For the ten years she was married to Mahlon she did not worship his God. Now, with Naomi, she accepts this God even if that means accepting a God who deals harshly. I read this as saying, I'm with you, good and bad, harsh God and all. We're in this together. [Sohn 1994]

K: I still don't think the text says much about Ruth. The author is painting her not as a strong woman but as a whiny child whom Naomi is going to have to put up with for at least the rest of the journey, if not for the rest of her life.

S: Well, I admit that when they get to Bethlehem it sure seems like Naomi doesn't want Ruth around. She doesn't even acknowledge her presence. To be honest, this part also made me angry. Here Ruth has come all this way with her, but Naomi will not even introduce her to her family members and fellow townspeople.

K: That's not the worst of it. The author, showing his stereotype of all women as oblivious to the world around them, doesn't even recognize the pain of those in Bethlehem. There is Naomi, weeping about how harshly she has been treated, while she has just entered a town that has been in famine for over ten years. Surely, some of these people have lost family members too. [Rosen 1994; Sohn 1994]

S: So now we move into chapter 2. Ruth asks Naomi if she may go into the fields and glean from the ears of grain (2:2).

K: And just as luck would have it, she happens to pick a field that belongs to one of Elimelech's relatives, Boaz (2:1, 3).

S: Don't be so cynical. Besides, Ruth is able to get some food so that she and Naomi can live. She isn't bemoaning her state, she is doing something about it. I think it says a lot about her as a person. She's a take-charge woman.

K: ... who first has to ask Naomi if what she's doing is all right!

S: Kara, remember, she is a foreigner in a strange land. Both the storyteller and the characters in the story emphasize that by repeatedly referring to her as "Ruth the Moabite" (2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10). She may not know the customs.

K: All right! Now enter Boaz, the kindly employer who, as you mentioned, warmly greets his workers and to whom the workers yell back "The Lord bless you." It all reminds me of movies like "Gone with the Wind," the happy slaves working in the field while the master sips his tea.

S: This is when he first meets Ruth.

K: From the beginning Boaz sees himself in a position of power over her. He inquires as "to whom she might belong" (2:5), as if she might be some other man's possession. Then he calls her "daughter" (2:8), and she throws herself at his feet like one of his slaves (2:10). I'm guessing this is what the author wanted her to do, just prostrate herself and eat dirt. And do you remember what he says to her? "I have told my men not to molest you" (2:9)! What are these men doing to all the other women in the fields? The women who gleaned were women who had no social standing, because they didn't have a man to speak for them. They were widows and orphans. The workers could have done whatever they wanted with these women, and those who survived the victimization would have had no recourse. In my mind this is a very disturbing part of the story that we often overlook. The all-benevolent Boaz even knows it is happening and obviously does nothing to stop it in the case of the other women. [Rosen 1994]

S: You are forgetting the kindness Boaz shows to Ruth, even though he had not seen her before. We all need to be affirmed as he affirms her when he retells her story of fidelity (2:11). He doesn't even know who she is.

K: Exactly, and that's part of the problem. If he had known it was a relative it would be one thing, but he is just smitten with Ruth. He doesn't care that much about the poor, as is evident from the way he allows his workers to treat them. He is only allowing the gleaning because it is mandated by Torah. (3)

S: Ah! But he does know that Ruth is a relative from the moment he first inquired about her (2:5-6). And you are simply speculating about the state of Boaz's mind and his (now) intervention in the case of the women workers. At any rate, Ruth goes home, and Naomi asks from whose field she gleaned. When she replies that it was from the field of Boaz Naomi sees an opportunity to regain control of her life and that of Ruth who is in her care. She seems to be brought back to life at the name of the kinsman who can redeem both her and her daughter-in-law. Naomi tells her to stay in Boaz's field and not to go into another one (2:19-22).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

K: So, precisely here Naomi has bought into the patriarchal structure. She believes that there is no other choice but to operate within the structure that views women as property to be dominated. She even takes on a patriarchal role. She tells Ruth what she is to do. Ruth has no say in the matter. She yields to her mother-in-law's supposed authority (2:23).

S: Naomi now gets a little impatient. She recognizes the good Boaz has done in giving Ruth and herself food, but she believes it's time for action. This is when she sends Ruth down to the threshing-room floor (3:1-6). Once again the women take control of the situation. Yes, they operate within an unjust system, but they use that system to get them what they need to survive.

K: So Ruth has to act in the capacity that demeans her completely, that of a prostitute. Why else put on her best clothes and perfumed oil (3:3) in advance of cuddling up to him in the dark? (3:7) Boaz doesn't know her from any other woman in the fields. To him she is just a body (3:8-9a).

S: You're forgetting that they do not sleep together until after he knows who she is.

K: That's debatable. It says that she already has "uncovered his feet" (3:4, 7). Many scholars agree that the feet are a euphemism for the penis. "Your latest deed of loyalty is greater then the first" (3:10). I'll say! Who knows what Ruth has been doing while Boaz was sleeping? The author has done what authors have always done to "strange, foreign" women: made her into an object for sexual gratification. [Sohn 1994]

S: I think you're missing the point of the story. Naomi and Ruth have contrived a means of redeeming their social status as well as their land. Boaz says that there is a closer relative who may redeem her ...

K: Again she is a piece of property to be obtained by the closest relative.

S: ... and that if this unnamed relative doesn't redeem her, he will (3:12-13).

K: And then he tells her to spend the night (3:13b). We all know this story. There have always been some men out there who would say anything to get a woman into bed. I would have wanted to see results and a ketubah (4) before you would have caught me on that floor. Not to mention the fact that she is still painted as a prostitute.

S: I think it's more than just sex. There's obviously a great deal of affection there.

K: Maybe on the side of Boaz, who keeps calling her "daughter," which is another analysis altogether, but what of Ruth? We are given no information about how she feels. The situation also strikes me as fishy in that Boaz sends Ruth off early in the morning before anyone can tell who she is. He, of course, pays in full for her services with six measures of barley. It is truly a miracle that he follows through on his promises at all. Then she goes home to Naomi, who tells her to stay inside until the dealings are overwith (3:14-18).

S: And Boaz does follow through. The very next day he goes to the town gate and speaks with the other redeemer about Ruth (4:1-6).

K: Wait a minute, Shannon. Boaz talks about the land first. Ruth comes second, because she is attached to the land. If you read on carefully, you will notice that Boaz always talks of marrying Ruth as a consequence of redeeming the land. The other kinsman cares nothing for Ruth and Naomi but only of his own estate, which will be impaired by the redemption. [Sohn 1994)]

S: It is then that Boaz, before all the town elders, redeems Ruth, Naomi, and the land (4:7-10).

K: Which he does so that the name of Mahlon, Ruth's deceased husband, will not leave the land (4:10). Again, there is no mention of Ruth or Naomi's future or well-being. The only concern is for the land. The townspeople then bless Boaz and the offspring which the Lord will give him through this young woman. [Rosen, 1994]

S: I agree that this blessing is strange. Evidently, the first child of Ruth and Boaz would not be considered a descendent of Boaz but of Mahlon.

K: And, once again, Ruth is left unnamed. The townspeople refer to her as "this young woman" (4:12) who is "coming into your home" (4:11), a typical male viewpoint.

S: Ruth and Boaz marry. The two women have succeeded in gaining a new life for themselves. They have redeemed the property that belonged to them and have found a means of survival in the marriage of Ruth to Boaz.

K: So, once again, Ruth is defined by the man she is married to. In the end, things are no better than when they started. Maybe they're even worse. To get where they are, Naomi manipulated Ruth, and Ruth played the whore for a dominating kinsman. Not exactly a Disney ending.

S: But it isn't the ending. Ruth and Boaz have a son, whom the women of the neighborhood name Obed. The narrator emphasizes that this son is a divine gift: "the Lord made her to conceive and she bore a son" (4:13).

K: Of course, a son. We never hear if they have daughters, because all that is important is that they have a son who will live on the land.

S: But women are at center stage here. Naomi takes the child and sees in him the future of her family. This future is evident to all the women who see the child. As I said, it is they who bestow upon the child the gift of a name, Obed, which means servant. He will be the restorer of life and a nourisher of Naomi in her old age (4:15a).

True, this is another example of a woman's dependence on a man in her life, this time a grandson. Still, in the very next breath the women assert that Ruth, Naomi's daughter-in-law who loves her, is worth more then seven sons! Through the indestructible bond forged between Ruth and Naomi this child is really both of theirs. So the women do not call her Mara, "bitterness," as she had asked (1:20) but restore her original name, Naomi. From the line of this child King David will be born. It is from the love and steadfastness of women that will come forth the greatest king of Israel. More than that: Ruth is specifically mentioned as an ancestor of Jesus in the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-17 (see v. 5). Think of that. Christians say Jesus is from this heritage. Is it any wonder he inherited a vision of the true dignity and worth of women along with that of men?

K: Perhaps. Still, look at the genealogy that closes the book of Ruth (4:18-22). It's Boaz's genealogy, not Ruth's. Even if the book bears her name, at the end she is erased from the family history. That says a lot about what the authors really thought about these women's contribution to the future of Israel.

S: Well, poor old Mahlon, whose name was to be mentioned, also gets elbowed out by Boaz in this genealogy (4:10).... Wow, we've been talking a long time. We had better get going or we'll be late for class.

K: Let's go, then. I'm glad we talked about this. I learned a lot from you.

S: And you brought up a number of things I didn't see before.

Concluding remarks

The number of canonical biblical texts in which women are allowed to speak are few. Of these texts, even fewer provide concrete examples in which the God of Israel works through women for the good of the community. While the Book of Ruth is notable for the active women it portrays, it must be remembered that it does not break from the tradition of patriarchy, which, both then and now, often oppresses and denigrates the bodies and spirits of women and often holds men captive in the traditional societal roles as well. The Book of Ruth has been, is, and will continue to be an object of close reading and interpretive debate within the walls of faith communities and the halls of academia. Such a unique story of both bitterness and friendship, indeed, friendship that crossed ethnic and religious boundaries, surely deserves such attention.

(1) The other book bearing the name of its heroine is Esther. The Septuagint Old Testament also includes Judith and Susanna, when the latter is separated from the book of Daniel.

(2) For variations on this custom, now called levirate marriage, see the story of Tamar and Judah in Genesis 38 and the Torah legislation in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

(3) See Lev 19:9, 23:22; Deut 24:19.

(4) A marriage contract.

Note: This article is a version of a paper first prepared for the course "Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom" in the Religious Studies Department at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. The course was taught by Professor William J. Urbrock, who also made suggestions for this revision.

References

Brenner, Athalya, ed. 1999. Ruth and Esther: A Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Hamlin, E. John. 1996. Surely There Is a Future: A Commentary on the Book of Ruth. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, and Edinburgh: Handsel Press Ltd.

Rosen, Norma. 1994. "Dialogue on Devotion." In Reading Ruth, ed. J. Kates and others. New York: Ballantine.

Sohn, Ruth H. 1994. "Verse by Verse: A Modern Commentary." In Reading Ruth, ed. J. Kates and others. New York: Ballantine.

For further reading

Alpert, Rebecca. 1994. "Finding our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth." In Reading Ruth, ed. J. Kates and others. New York: Ballantine.

Aschkenasy, Nehama. 1994. "Language as Female Empowerment in Ruth." In Reading Ruth, ed. J. Kates and others. New York: Ballantine.

Fewell, Danna Nolan, and David Miller Gunn. 1990. Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Goldreich, Gloria. 1994. Ruth, Naomi, and Orpah: A Parable of Friendship." In Reading Ruth, ed. J. Kates and others. New York: Ballantine.

Kluger, Yehezkel. 1999. A Psychological Interpretation of Ruth: In the Light of Mythology, Legend and Kabbalah. Einsiedeln, Switzerland: Daimon.

LaCocque, Andre. 1990. The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel's Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Sakenfeld, Katherine Doob. 1999. Interpretation: Ruth. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Trible, Phyllis. 1978. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Lutheran School of Theology and Mission
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group