Content provided in partnership with

The only thing to do - Ruth 1:1-18 - Living by the Word - Column

Christian Century, Oct 19, 1994 by Martin B. Copenhaver

All three men in the family are dead. Naomi and her daughters-in-law Ruth and Orpah are a vulnerable little cluster of widows. They live in a time before women could leave home to get a job, before life insurance - a time when to be a widow meant being destitute.

So Naomi, a Jew, decides to leave the land of Moab and head for Judah, where her family and other fellow Jews reside. Naomi instructs Ruth and Orpah to remain in Moab and begin a new life among their own people. But instead of staying in Moab with their fellow gentiles, Ruth and Orpah begin to follow Naomi toward Judah. Before they have traveled very far Naomi entreats them again, reminding them that they will face difficult times if they follow her.

More Articles of Interest: Bitterness and friendship: a feminist exegesis of the Book of Ruth; Who Are You, My Daughter? Reading Ruth through Image and Text; Friendship in the Bible; Ruth and the Sense of Self: Midrash and Difference; The unruly spirit - Acts 2:1-21 - Living by the Word - Column

This time Orpah kisses Naomi and departs, returning to Moab. But Ruth clings to Naomi and says, "Do not press me to leave you or turn back from following you. Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge, your people shall be my people, and your God my God."

We tend to interpret this passage as an instance of free choice. Ruth could either stay in her homeland or leave with her mother-in-law. We understand the passage that way, I think, because in our culture we see life as a flowing array of choices. This is apparent not only in supermarkets, where shelves are jammed with at least 50 different kinds of breakfast cereal, but also in more significant matters. We choose whether to marry, whom to marry, whether to stay married, whether to have children. We choose our religion, our profession, our social relationships. In our culture, we prize individualism so highly that we assume that choice is the governing principle of life.

Even a discussion of ethics quickly dissolves into a consideration of difficult choices. In many ways, however, the most telling ethical decisions are those that a person is never aware of making. Instead, they flow without reflection from whatever character or virtues have been developed. When asked how such a decision was reached, the reply might be, "It seemed the only thing to do." Only when character, rather than choice, becomes central to ethics can we make sense out of Aristotle's statement that an ethical decision is one that is made by an ethical person. To the contemporary mind, which exalts individual choice above all else, that observation can sound like the reflection of a lazy mind that is unwilling to grapple with tough decisions.

It is difficult for us to understand that people in other times and cultures did not see these fundamental aspects of life as the result of choices, but as simple givens. Ruth's declaration that she will follow Naomi is so immediate, so unyielding, so matter-of-fact, so lacking in reflection, that we may begin to recognize that she doesn't see it as a choice at all. Staying with her mother-in-law is simply the thing to do. She could always leave as Orpah did. But for Ruth, following Naomi is simply living out one of the givens of life. After all, the two women were thrown together by happenstance. Ruth happened to marry Naomi's son, a marriage that was probably arranged. If there were choices involved, they were made by other people long ago.

Family relationships are filled with living reminders of the limits of choice. We do not choose our parents or who our children are. And we cannot choose to change them in any fundamental way, either. We are stuck with them.

All of us have people in our families who infuriate us or embarrass us or annoy us. I, for instance, have weird cousins. I have heard many others say that they also have weird cousins. I have a theory that everyone has weird cousins (a theory that has not been entirely contradicted by the realization that I am someone's cousin). I didn't choose my cousins and they didn't choose me. We are stuck with each other, and for reasons none of us may be able to fathom, we stick by each other.

In ways that we usually do not recognize, this lack of choice extends to the person we marry. When I told my future father-in-law about my plan to marry his daughter, I knew that I had to make a good case. It certainly was a well-rehearsed case! I told him that our decision was not made in haste, that we were making the right choice. In short, I told him we knew what we were doing.

The only trouble is that contrary to what we tell our future in-laws, no one knows what he is doing when he gets married. Circumstances change. People change. If marriage is a decision it is a decision to be stuck with someone for no justifiable reason. And it is a decision to be stuck with someone long after the time of decision has passed.

Our fidelity to those we are stuck with is a powerful reminder of the fidelity of a God who is stuck with us. That is why the story of Ruth - a gentile - has an honored place in the Hebrew scriptures. She reminded the Jews of something important about their God.

God does not leave when the going gets tough, when we are as destitute as an ancient Near Eastern widow. God is not committed to us because it is in God's interest, or for any other good reason. Rather, God is committed to us because . . . well, because that's the way God is.

The only thing to do - Ruth 1:1-18 - Living by the Word - Column

Christian Century, Oct 19, 1994 by Martin B. Copenhaver

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference