“Ruth advances two main messages. The first is ḥésed. Basically, this denotes an act done out of kindness and not as a compliance with a legal obligation. The second message is ‘leniency’ toward the ger (foreign resident), whose devotion and piety are more meaningful than ritual adherence by persons born into the faith,” I observed.
“I agree with you, Peter’le. I suggest we discuss these in detail and then turn to additional messages that emerge from these two.”
“To start with Ruth and her sister-in-law have no legal duty to marry foreigners residing in Moab. Their doing so and treating their husbands well constitutes ḥésed. So is their devotion to Naomi. Initially, both wish to accompany her when she departs from Moab. Ruth’s decision to adhere to her is yet another ḥésed. So is Boaz’s assumption of the redemption and levirate marriage duties.”
“Does this have a general implication, Peter’le?”
“I think it does, Maestro. The author implies that an act of grace (ḥésed) is to be preferred to or is more significant than the mechanical performance of a legal obligation.”
“Point taken,” approved Theophil. “Let us turn to the second message.”
“Ruth is a ‘ger’ and, throughout the books, is described as a Moabite woman. She is also a widow and poor. At the same time, she is an ancestress of King David and is fully embedded in Israel’s ancient history. We are told that conventional belonging is created by commitment and conduct rather than by genealogy or purity of blood.”
“Does this view undermine the ethnic purity doctrines that were current in Jehud of the 5th century BCE, Peter’le?”
“It does. It clashes with the doctrines postulated by Ezra and Nehemiah, who regard the taking of foreign wives – intermarriage – as dangerous and impure and preach segregation and expulsion. Ruth suggests that exclusionary racial policy is historically misguided and religiously unjustified. Even the Perez family – staunch supporters of that policy – are of mixed blood.”
“You made your point, Peter’le. Let us turn to subsidiary or supplementary messages. These should not be overlooked.”
“A cardinal one is that women are often decisive actors that shape history. Naomi initiates the return to Beth Lehem and, later on, devises the threshing-floor strategy, which leads to Ruth’s redemption. Ruth sustains the household in Beth-Lehem and sets the redemption in motion by appealing to Boaz. And the women of Beth Lehem name Obed. All this shows that history is often driven by women operating outside the formal power structures.”
“Any other examples in the Old Testament?”
“I can think of two, Maestro. One is the story of Jehudah and Tamar, discussed earlier on. The other is Deborah’s persuasion of Barak respecting the overthrowing of Jabin, the King of Canaan (Jud., 4).”
“Any further message or implication, Peter’le?”
“There is, Maestro. Ruth implies that redemption is not just economic but also social. It is not merely a technical property transaction. In Ruth, it restores the heroine’s human dignity and social stability.”
“And the general implication?”
“God – or providence – operate through kindness and mercy rather than strict adherence to legal principles. And this ḥésed is shown not only to Israelites but also to gentiles, who adopt God’s commandments. And, Maestro, this doctrine is in line with the world view of Jonah.”
“How about the theodicy issue, discussed so thoroughly in Job, Peterle?”
“It arises in Ruth, Maestro. When Naomi arrives back in Beth Lehem, she asks people to refer to her as ‘Mara’ (which means ‘bitter’) and observes that God has dealt with her severely. As we are not told that Naomi committed any sin, it looks as if she is an innocent person, made to suffer without reason.”
“But is the point analysed?”
“It is not. It is resolved when Boaz redeems and marrie Ruth. We are told that Obed’s birth and Ruth’s new status secure Naomi’s future. If there is any message here, it is simple and straightforward: the suffering of the innocent is redressed if they continue to have faith.”
“Does this solution appeal to you, Peter’le?”
“It does not. The lucid debate in Job demonstrates that the issue is complex and often not resolved.”
“Well, Peter’le, we have covered the messages of Ruth. But I can sense that, although you are in tandem with their thrust, you do not like the book. As you know, I can read your thoughts and emotions.”
“I know that you can and have done so presently, Maestro. But I am not certain whether my reaction is purely emotive or ground in reason.”
“The point requires detached analysis. But you are tired, my friend. Our chat has stretched over a few hours. I suggest you retire. We can proceed tomorrow.”
“But won’t I meander about throughout the night?”
“You won’t. I’ll take care of this. So, sleep well.”