King James Version
Ruth 1
22 verses with commentary
Naomi and Ruth Return to Bethlehem
Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. ruled: Heb. judged
View commentary
Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
This opening establishes the historical setting during Israel's darkest period—"when the judges ruled" (b'yemei shefot ha-shoftim, בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים). The book of Judges describes this era as one when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25), characterized by spiritual apostasy, moral chaos, and military oppression. Against this backdrop of national failure, Ruth's story emerges as a beacon of covenant faithfulness.
The famine (ra'av, רָעָב) in the land is theologically significant. Deuteronomy 28 explicitly identifies famine as covenant curse for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28:17-18, 23-24). The land God promised to give Israel, flowing with milk and honey, now produces nothing—a divine indictment of the nation's spiritual condition. That the famine strikes Bethlehem ("house of bread") is deeply ironic—the very place named for abundance now experiences devastating scarcity.
Elimelech's decision to "sojourn" (lagur, לָגוּר) in Moab reveals desperation driving him to compromise. Moab, descended from Lot's incestuous relationship (Genesis 19:30-38), was Israel's enemy, excluded from the assembly of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). Seeking sustenance from God's enemies rather than trusting divine provision represents a failure of faith—a pattern repeated throughout Israel's history when believers look to the world rather than God for deliverance.
This opening establishes the historical setting during Israel's darkest period—"when the judges ruled" (b'yemei shefot ha-shoftim, בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים). The book of Judges describes this era as one when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25), characterized by spiritual apostasy, moral chaos, and military oppression. Against this backdrop of national failure, Ruth's story emerges as a beacon of covenant faithfulness.
The famine (ra'av, רָעָב) in the land is theologically significant. Deuteronomy 28 explicitly identifies famine as covenant curse for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28:17-18, 23-24). The land God promised to give Israel, flowing with milk and honey, now produces nothing—a divine indictment of the nation's spiritual condition. That the famine strikes Bethlehem ("house of bread") is deeply ironic—the very place named for abundance now experiences devastating scarcity.
Elimelech's decision to "sojourn" (lagur, לָגוּר) in Moab reveals desperation driving him to compromise. Moab, descended from Lot's incestuous relationship (Genesis 19:30-38), was Israel's enemy, excluded from the assembly of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). Seeking sustenance from God's enemies rather than trusting divine provision represents a failure of faith—a pattern repeated throughout Israel's history when believers look to the world rather than God for deliverance.
And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah . And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. continued: Heb. were
View commentary
And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
The naming of characters signals their thematic significance. "Elimelech" (Elimelek, אֱלִימֶלֶךְ) means "my God is King," a name affirming Yahweh's sovereignty—ironic given Elimelech's subsequent decisions that seemingly question divine provision and protection. "Naomi" (Na'omi, נָעֳמִי) means "pleasant" or "lovely," a name she later rejects as no longer fitting her experience (1:20).
The sons' names are ominous: "Mahlon" (Machlon, מַחְלוֹן) possibly means "sickly" or "weak," while "Chilion" (Kilyon, כִּלְיוֹן) means "failing" or "pining away." These names may be symbolic, foreshadowing the sons' premature deaths, or reflect the family's circumstances during famine. The designation "Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah" identifies them as natives of the region around Bethlehem, Ephrath being Bethlehem's ancient name (Genesis 35:19; Micah 5:2).
The phrase "they came into the country of Moab, and continued there" uses the verb vayihyu (וַיִּהְיוּ, "and they were/remained"), suggesting they settled rather than briefly sojourned. What began as temporary refuge became permanent residence—a pattern believers recognize when temporary compromises become entrenched lifestyles. The text's understated narration invites readers to evaluate whether this family's choices demonstrated faith or faithlessness.
The naming of characters signals their thematic significance. "Elimelech" (Elimelek, אֱלִימֶלֶךְ) means "my God is King," a name affirming Yahweh's sovereignty—ironic given Elimelech's subsequent decisions that seemingly question divine provision and protection. "Naomi" (Na'omi, נָעֳמִי) means "pleasant" or "lovely," a name she later rejects as no longer fitting her experience (1:20).
The sons' names are ominous: "Mahlon" (Machlon, מַחְלוֹן) possibly means "sickly" or "weak," while "Chilion" (Kilyon, כִּלְיוֹן) means "failing" or "pining away." These names may be symbolic, foreshadowing the sons' premature deaths, or reflect the family's circumstances during famine. The designation "Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah" identifies them as natives of the region around Bethlehem, Ephrath being Bethlehem's ancient name (Genesis 35:19; Micah 5:2).
The phrase "they came into the country of Moab, and continued there" uses the verb vayihyu (וַיִּהְיוּ, "and they were/remained"), suggesting they settled rather than briefly sojourned. What began as temporary refuge became permanent residence—a pattern believers recognize when temporary compromises become entrenched lifestyles. The text's understated narration invites readers to evaluate whether this family's choices demonstrated faith or faithlessness.
And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
View commentary
And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
The terse statement "Elimelech Naomi's husband died" (vayamot Elimelek, וַיָּמָת אֱלִימֶלֶךְ) receives no elaboration or explanation. The narrative's economy emphasizes the outcome rather than the process—the family patriarch who led them to Moab now leaves them as vulnerable foreigners in enemy territory. The Hebrew verb mut (מוּת, "died") appears repeatedly in this chapter (vv. 3, 5), creating a funeral dirge atmosphere.
The phrase "she was left" (vatisha'er, וַתִּשָּׁאֵר) uses a verb meaning "to remain" or "be left behind," often with connotations of survival or remnant. Naomi becomes a remnant—left alone without her primary provider and protector in a foreign land. This verb appears frequently in contexts of divine judgment leaving only a remnant (Isaiah 1:9; 10:20-22), suggesting Naomi's survival despite loss connects to God's preserving purposes.
That she remains "with her two sons" provides temporary comfort but foreshadows further loss (v. 5). In ancient Near Eastern culture, a widow's security depended on adult sons who could provide for her and preserve the family line. Naomi still has two sons, suggesting hope for future stability. However, the narrative's foreboding tone, combined with the sons' ominous names ("sickly" and "failing"), hints that this security is temporary. The text invites theological reflection on whether Elimelech's death in Moab represents divine judgment for leaving the Promised Land during famine.
The terse statement "Elimelech Naomi's husband died" (vayamot Elimelek, וַיָּמָת אֱלִימֶלֶךְ) receives no elaboration or explanation. The narrative's economy emphasizes the outcome rather than the process—the family patriarch who led them to Moab now leaves them as vulnerable foreigners in enemy territory. The Hebrew verb mut (מוּת, "died") appears repeatedly in this chapter (vv. 3, 5), creating a funeral dirge atmosphere.
The phrase "she was left" (vatisha'er, וַתִּשָּׁאֵר) uses a verb meaning "to remain" or "be left behind," often with connotations of survival or remnant. Naomi becomes a remnant—left alone without her primary provider and protector in a foreign land. This verb appears frequently in contexts of divine judgment leaving only a remnant (Isaiah 1:9; 10:20-22), suggesting Naomi's survival despite loss connects to God's preserving purposes.
That she remains "with her two sons" provides temporary comfort but foreshadows further loss (v. 5). In ancient Near Eastern culture, a widow's security depended on adult sons who could provide for her and preserve the family line. Naomi still has two sons, suggesting hope for future stability. However, the narrative's foreboding tone, combined with the sons' ominous names ("sickly" and "failing"), hints that this security is temporary. The text invites theological reflection on whether Elimelech's death in Moab represents divine judgment for leaving the Promised Land during famine.
And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.
View commentary
And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.
The sons' marriages to Moabite women represents further assimilation into Moabite culture. The verb "took" (vayis'u, וַיִּשְׂאוּ) is the standard term for marriage but carries undertones of active choice—they selected Moabite wives rather than returning to Judah to find Israelite brides. Given Deuteronomy 23:3-6's prohibition against Moabites entering the assembly, these marriages were controversial at minimum, possibly explicitly prohibited.
"Orpah" (Orpah, עָרְפָּה) possibly derives from oref (עֹרֶף, "neck" or "back of the neck"), perhaps foreshadowing her later decision to turn back (turn the neck) to Moab. "Ruth" (Rut, רוּת) may derive from re'ut (רְעוּת, "friendship" or "association"), suggesting companionship—fitting given her loyal friendship to Naomi. Alternatively, it may relate to ravah (רָוָה, "to drink" or "be saturated"), signifying satisfaction or abundance.
The phrase "they dwelled there about ten years" indicates the family's complete settlement in Moab. What began as temporary sojourn during famine became a decade of residence, including marriages establishing permanent connections. The round number "ten years" may be literal or symbolic, suggesting a complete period. During this decade, the sons presumably could have returned to Judah (famine doesn't last ten years), yet they remained, raising questions about their commitment to covenant identity versus comfort in Moab.
The sons' marriages to Moabite women represents further assimilation into Moabite culture. The verb "took" (vayis'u, וַיִּשְׂאוּ) is the standard term for marriage but carries undertones of active choice—they selected Moabite wives rather than returning to Judah to find Israelite brides. Given Deuteronomy 23:3-6's prohibition against Moabites entering the assembly, these marriages were controversial at minimum, possibly explicitly prohibited.
"Orpah" (Orpah, עָרְפָּה) possibly derives from oref (עֹרֶף, "neck" or "back of the neck"), perhaps foreshadowing her later decision to turn back (turn the neck) to Moab. "Ruth" (Rut, רוּת) may derive from re'ut (רְעוּת, "friendship" or "association"), suggesting companionship—fitting given her loyal friendship to Naomi. Alternatively, it may relate to ravah (רָוָה, "to drink" or "be saturated"), signifying satisfaction or abundance.
The phrase "they dwelled there about ten years" indicates the family's complete settlement in Moab. What began as temporary sojourn during famine became a decade of residence, including marriages establishing permanent connections. The round number "ten years" may be literal or symbolic, suggesting a complete period. During this decade, the sons presumably could have returned to Judah (famine doesn't last ten years), yet they remained, raising questions about their commitment to covenant identity versus comfort in Moab.
And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.
View commentary
And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.
This verse completes the trilogy of death that dominates Ruth 1:1-5. The stark statement "Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them" (vayamutu gam-sheneihem, וַיָּמֻתוּ גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶם) uses the same verb mut (מוּת) as verse 3, creating a rhythmic funeral litany. The emphatic "also" (gam) and "both of them" (sheneihem) stress the completeness of loss—not just one son but both, leaving no male heir.
The phrase "the woman was left" (vatisha'er ha'ishah, וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הָאִשָּׁה) echoes verse 3's description of Naomi being left, but now intensifies the loss. She's no longer "Naomi" (pleasant) but simply "the woman" (ha'ishah), stripped of the identity that husband and sons provided. The phrase "of her two sons and her husband" can be translated "bereaved of" or "without"—she's left without (Hebrew mishnei, מִשְּׁנֵי) those who gave her security, identity, and hope.
The text provides no explanation for the sons' deaths—no disease, accident, or divine judgment is mentioned. This silence invites theological reflection. Some interpreters see the deaths as judgment for marrying Moabites or refusing to return to Judah. Others view them simply as tragic mortality highlighting life's fragility. What's narratively clear is that Naomi faces complete desolation, utterly dependent on God's provision with no visible human resource. This extremity sets the stage for divine intervention through Ruth's loyalty and Boaz's redemption.
This verse completes the trilogy of death that dominates Ruth 1:1-5. The stark statement "Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them" (vayamutu gam-sheneihem, וַיָּמֻתוּ גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶם) uses the same verb mut (מוּת) as verse 3, creating a rhythmic funeral litany. The emphatic "also" (gam) and "both of them" (sheneihem) stress the completeness of loss—not just one son but both, leaving no male heir.
The phrase "the woman was left" (vatisha'er ha'ishah, וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הָאִשָּׁה) echoes verse 3's description of Naomi being left, but now intensifies the loss. She's no longer "Naomi" (pleasant) but simply "the woman" (ha'ishah), stripped of the identity that husband and sons provided. The phrase "of her two sons and her husband" can be translated "bereaved of" or "without"—she's left without (Hebrew mishnei, מִשְּׁנֵי) those who gave her security, identity, and hope.
The text provides no explanation for the sons' deaths—no disease, accident, or divine judgment is mentioned. This silence invites theological reflection. Some interpreters see the deaths as judgment for marrying Moabites or refusing to return to Judah. Others view them simply as tragic mortality highlighting life's fragility. What's narratively clear is that Naomi faces complete desolation, utterly dependent on God's provision with no visible human resource. This extremity sets the stage for divine intervention through Ruth's loyalty and Boaz's redemption.
Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.
View commentary
Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.
The word "then" (vataqam, וַתָּקָם, "she arose") marks Naomi's decision to return, shifting from passive suffering to active response. After the deaths of her husband and sons, she could have remained in Moab in despair, but instead chooses to act. This demonstrates that even in deepest grief, believers must eventually move from paralysis to purposeful action, trusting God's provision rather than remaining in places of compromise.
The phrase "the LORD had visited his people" (paqad Yahweh et-amo, פָּקַד יְהוָה אֶת־עַמּוֹ) uses the verb paqad (פָּקַד), meaning to attend to, care for, or intervene on behalf of. This same verb describes God's visitation of Sarah (Genesis 21:1), Hannah (1 Samuel 2:21), and His promise to visit Israel in Egypt (Genesis 50:24-25). Divine visitation often brings deliverance, provision, and fulfillment of promises after long waiting.
"In giving them bread" (latet lahem lachem, לָתֵת לָהֶם לָחֶם) emphasizes God's provision of physical sustenance. The famine that drove Elimelech to Moab has ended—the same God who sent famine as discipline now sends bread as restoration. That Naomi hears this news "in the country of Moab" suggests communication networks between Moab and Israel, perhaps through traders or travelers. God's care for His people in Judah reaches Naomi even in distant Moab, drawing her home.
The word "then" (vataqam, וַתָּקָם, "she arose") marks Naomi's decision to return, shifting from passive suffering to active response. After the deaths of her husband and sons, she could have remained in Moab in despair, but instead chooses to act. This demonstrates that even in deepest grief, believers must eventually move from paralysis to purposeful action, trusting God's provision rather than remaining in places of compromise.
The phrase "the LORD had visited his people" (paqad Yahweh et-amo, פָּקַד יְהוָה אֶת־עַמּוֹ) uses the verb paqad (פָּקַד), meaning to attend to, care for, or intervene on behalf of. This same verb describes God's visitation of Sarah (Genesis 21:1), Hannah (1 Samuel 2:21), and His promise to visit Israel in Egypt (Genesis 50:24-25). Divine visitation often brings deliverance, provision, and fulfillment of promises after long waiting.
"In giving them bread" (latet lahem lachem, לָתֵת לָהֶם לָחֶם) emphasizes God's provision of physical sustenance. The famine that drove Elimelech to Moab has ended—the same God who sent famine as discipline now sends bread as restoration. That Naomi hears this news "in the country of Moab" suggests communication networks between Moab and Israel, perhaps through traders or travelers. God's care for His people in Judah reaches Naomi even in distant Moab, drawing her home.
Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
View commentary
Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
The phrase "she went forth out of the place where she was" (vatetzeh min-hamakom, וַתֵּצֵא מִן־הַמָּקוֹם) uses vocabulary echoing Abraham's call to leave his country (Genesis 12:1) and Israel's exodus from Egypt (Exodus 13:3). This linguistic connection suggests Naomi's return is more than geographical relocation—it's a spiritual journey from compromise back to covenant relationship with God's people. Leaving "the place" of death and barrenness to return to the land of promise mirrors every believer's call to abandon worldly systems for life in God's kingdom.
That "her two daughters in law" initially accompany her demonstrates the influence of godly character even in difficult circumstances. Despite losing husband and sons, Naomi maintained relationships characterized by sufficient love and loyalty that her Moabite daughters-in-law chose to leave their homeland with her. This testifies to authentic faith's attractive power—genuine Christianity draws others through love, not merely correct doctrine.
The phrase "on the way to return" (bederek lashuv, בַּדֶּרֶךְ לָשׁוּב) uses shuv (שׁוּב), the standard Hebrew word for repentance, meaning to turn back or return. While primarily geographical here, the theological overtones are unmistakable. Naomi's physical return to Judah represents spiritual return to covenant community and divine provision. The journey "on the way" suggests process—repentance isn't instantaneous arrival but a journey requiring sustained commitment despite difficulty.
The phrase "she went forth out of the place where she was" (vatetzeh min-hamakom, וַתֵּצֵא מִן־הַמָּקוֹם) uses vocabulary echoing Abraham's call to leave his country (Genesis 12:1) and Israel's exodus from Egypt (Exodus 13:3). This linguistic connection suggests Naomi's return is more than geographical relocation—it's a spiritual journey from compromise back to covenant relationship with God's people. Leaving "the place" of death and barrenness to return to the land of promise mirrors every believer's call to abandon worldly systems for life in God's kingdom.
That "her two daughters in law" initially accompany her demonstrates the influence of godly character even in difficult circumstances. Despite losing husband and sons, Naomi maintained relationships characterized by sufficient love and loyalty that her Moabite daughters-in-law chose to leave their homeland with her. This testifies to authentic faith's attractive power—genuine Christianity draws others through love, not merely correct doctrine.
The phrase "on the way to return" (bederek lashuv, בַּדֶּרֶךְ לָשׁוּב) uses shuv (שׁוּב), the standard Hebrew word for repentance, meaning to turn back or return. While primarily geographical here, the theological overtones are unmistakable. Naomi's physical return to Judah represents spiritual return to covenant community and divine provision. The journey "on the way" suggests process—repentance isn't instantaneous arrival but a journey requiring sustained commitment despite difficulty.
And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.
View commentary
And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt kindly with the dead, and with me.
Naomi's command "Go, return" (lekhnah shovnah, לֵכְנָה שֹׁבְנָה) uses the imperative form, urging decisive action. She doesn't merely suggest but commands them to turn back to Moab. The reference to "mother's house" rather than "father's house" (the typical expression) is unusual, possibly indicating that their fathers were deceased, or emphasizing the female sphere where young widows would find comfort and eventually new marriages.
The phrase "the LORD deal kindly with you" invokes Yahweh's blessing despite urging them to return to Moab. This demonstrates Naomi's recognition that Yahweh's care extends beyond ethnic boundaries—He can bless even Moabites who show covenant loyalty. The word "kindly" translates chesed (חֶסֶד), one of the Old Testament's most significant theological terms, meaning loyal love, covenant faithfulness, or steadfast mercy. It describes God's unwavering commitment to His promises.
Naomi's prayer asks God to show chesed to her daughters-in-law "as ye have dealt kindly with the dead, and with me." She recognizes their loyal love (chesed) toward her deceased sons and herself. This is remarkable—Naomi sees her pagan Moabite daughters-in-law as having demonstrated covenant loyalty, the very quality that should characterize God's people Israel. Their faithfulness to their Israelite husbands and widowed mother-in-law exemplified chesed more than many Israelites demonstrated during the judges period.
Naomi's command "Go, return" (lekhnah shovnah, לֵכְנָה שֹׁבְנָה) uses the imperative form, urging decisive action. She doesn't merely suggest but commands them to turn back to Moab. The reference to "mother's house" rather than "father's house" (the typical expression) is unusual, possibly indicating that their fathers were deceased, or emphasizing the female sphere where young widows would find comfort and eventually new marriages.
The phrase "the LORD deal kindly with you" invokes Yahweh's blessing despite urging them to return to Moab. This demonstrates Naomi's recognition that Yahweh's care extends beyond ethnic boundaries—He can bless even Moabites who show covenant loyalty. The word "kindly" translates chesed (חֶסֶד), one of the Old Testament's most significant theological terms, meaning loyal love, covenant faithfulness, or steadfast mercy. It describes God's unwavering commitment to His promises.
Naomi's prayer asks God to show chesed to her daughters-in-law "as ye have dealt kindly with the dead, and with me." She recognizes their loyal love (chesed) toward her deceased sons and herself. This is remarkable—Naomi sees her pagan Moabite daughters-in-law as having demonstrated covenant loyalty, the very quality that should characterize God's people Israel. Their faithfulness to their Israelite husbands and widowed mother-in-law exemplified chesed more than many Israelites demonstrated during the judges period.
The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
View commentary
Naomi's urging continues as she points to Orpah's decision: "Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law." This verse captures a decisive moment where the two Moabite women make opposite choices regarding covenant faith. The Hebrew uses the perfect tense shavah (שָׁבָה, "she has returned") to indicate Orpah's completed action—she has definitively turned back to Moab.
Significantly, Naomi identifies Orpah's return as both ethnic and religious: "unto her people, and unto her gods." The plural "gods" (eloheha, אֱלֹהֶיהָ) indicates the polytheistic worship Orpah was resuming. The chief Moabite deity was Chemosh, to whom child sacrifices were offered (2 Kings 3:27). By returning to "her gods," Orpah was abandoning whatever knowledge of Yahweh she had gained through marriage into an Israelite family. This demonstrates that mere proximity to God's people doesn't guarantee genuine conversion—Orpah had lived among believers for perhaps a decade but ultimately chose familiar paganism over costly covenant commitment.
Naomi's command "return thou after thy sister in law" shows her continued attempt to release Ruth from obligation. The phrase "after thy sister in law" (acherei yevimtekh, אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ) emphasizes following Orpah's example. Naomi presents the easier path—return to family, security, and familiar religion. This makes Ruth's subsequent refusal even more remarkable. She chooses the harder path not from lack of alternatives but from genuine faith conviction. The contrast between Orpah and Ruth illustrates Jesus' teaching about the narrow and wide gates (Matthew 7:13-14)—many choose the easy path back to the world, but few choose the costly way of discipleship.
Significantly, Naomi identifies Orpah's return as both ethnic and religious: "unto her people, and unto her gods." The plural "gods" (eloheha, אֱלֹהֶיהָ) indicates the polytheistic worship Orpah was resuming. The chief Moabite deity was Chemosh, to whom child sacrifices were offered (2 Kings 3:27). By returning to "her gods," Orpah was abandoning whatever knowledge of Yahweh she had gained through marriage into an Israelite family. This demonstrates that mere proximity to God's people doesn't guarantee genuine conversion—Orpah had lived among believers for perhaps a decade but ultimately chose familiar paganism over costly covenant commitment.
Naomi's command "return thou after thy sister in law" shows her continued attempt to release Ruth from obligation. The phrase "after thy sister in law" (acherei yevimtekh, אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ) emphasizes following Orpah's example. Naomi presents the easier path—return to family, security, and familiar religion. This makes Ruth's subsequent refusal even more remarkable. She chooses the harder path not from lack of alternatives but from genuine faith conviction. The contrast between Orpah and Ruth illustrates Jesus' teaching about the narrow and wide gates (Matthew 7:13-14)—many choose the easy path back to the world, but few choose the costly way of discipleship.
And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people.
View commentary
And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people. Both daughters-in-law initially protest Naomi's urging to return to Moab (v. 8). The emphatic "Surely" translates the Hebrew particle ki (כִּי), which functions here as an assertive declaration: "No! We will certainly return with you." The verb "return" (nashuv, נָשׁוּב) is ironic—they will "return" with Naomi though they've never been to Judah. For Orpah and Ruth, going to Israel means leaving their homeland for a foreign land; for Naomi, it's returning home.
The phrase "unto thy people" (el-ammekh, אֶל־עַמֵּךְ) emphasizes the ethnic and covenantal dimension of this choice. "People" (am, עַם) in Hebrew denotes more than ethnicity—it signifies covenant community, shared identity, and collective destiny. By choosing to go to Naomi's people, the daughters-in-law are choosing to abandon Moabite identity and embrace Israelite covenant identity. This is precisely what Ruth later declares explicitly (v. 16-17), but here both women express initial willingness.
Their response reveals genuine affection for Naomi—not mere duty or formality but authentic love cultivated during their marriages. Despite Naomi's losses and bitterness (v. 13, 20), these young women prefer her companionship in poverty and uncertainty to the security and familiarity of Moab. Their declaration demonstrates that even in Israel's darkest period (the judges era), when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25), individual Israelites could still reflect God's covenant character, attracting outsiders through godly example. True faith creates communities worth joining even at great personal cost.
The phrase "unto thy people" (el-ammekh, אֶל־עַמֵּךְ) emphasizes the ethnic and covenantal dimension of this choice. "People" (am, עַם) in Hebrew denotes more than ethnicity—it signifies covenant community, shared identity, and collective destiny. By choosing to go to Naomi's people, the daughters-in-law are choosing to abandon Moabite identity and embrace Israelite covenant identity. This is precisely what Ruth later declares explicitly (v. 16-17), but here both women express initial willingness.
Their response reveals genuine affection for Naomi—not mere duty or formality but authentic love cultivated during their marriages. Despite Naomi's losses and bitterness (v. 13, 20), these young women prefer her companionship in poverty and uncertainty to the security and familiarity of Moab. Their declaration demonstrates that even in Israel's darkest period (the judges era), when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25), individual Israelites could still reflect God's covenant character, attracting outsiders through godly example. True faith creates communities worth joining even at great personal cost.
And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
View commentary
And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? Naomi responds to their protest by presenting harsh reality. "Turn again" (shovnah, שֹׁבְנָה) repeats the verb from verse 8—she insists they return to Moab. The rhetorical question "why will ye go with me?" (lammah telekhnah immi, לָמָּה תֵלַכְנָה עִמִּי) challenges their decision as irrational. Naomi sees no practical benefit for them in accompanying her.
The question "are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?" references the levirate marriage custom (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), where a deceased man's brother marries the widow to provide an heir for the deceased. The Hebrew idiom literally asks, "Are there still sons in my womb?" The obvious answer is no—Naomi is beyond childbearing years, her husband is dead, and even if she remarried and bore sons, the time lag would make this solution absurd (v. 12-13).
Naomi's logic is impeccably practical but spiritually deficient. She calculates based purely on human resources and visible circumstances, ignoring God's ability to provide beyond levirate law through other means. Her reasoning reflects the bitter perspective of verses 13 and 20-21, where she sees only divine opposition rather than divine providence. Yet this very "hopeless" situation creates the narrative space for God to work redemption through unexpected means—Boaz as kinsman-redeemer, Ruth's initiative in gleaning, and God's sovereign orchestration of their meeting.
The question "are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?" references the levirate marriage custom (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), where a deceased man's brother marries the widow to provide an heir for the deceased. The Hebrew idiom literally asks, "Are there still sons in my womb?" The obvious answer is no—Naomi is beyond childbearing years, her husband is dead, and even if she remarried and bore sons, the time lag would make this solution absurd (v. 12-13).
Naomi's logic is impeccably practical but spiritually deficient. She calculates based purely on human resources and visible circumstances, ignoring God's ability to provide beyond levirate law through other means. Her reasoning reflects the bitter perspective of verses 13 and 20-21, where she sees only divine opposition rather than divine providence. Yet this very "hopeless" situation creates the narrative space for God to work redemption through unexpected means—Boaz as kinsman-redeemer, Ruth's initiative in gleaning, and God's sovereign orchestration of their meeting.
Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons; should have: or were with an husband
View commentary
Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons; Naomi intensifies her argument with brutal realism. The repetition "Turn again" (shovnah, שֹׁבְנָה) plus "go your way" (lekhnah, לֵכְנָה) creates emphatic dismissal—she's urging them away. "I am too old to have an husband" (zakanti mihyot le'ish, זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ) states biological reality: she has aged past (zakanti) the possibility of marriage and childbearing.
The hypothetical construction "If I should say, I have hope" (ki amarta yesh-li tikvah, כִּי אָמַרְתִּי יֶשׁ־לִי תִקְוָה) introduces an impossible scenario. "Hope" (tikvah, תִּקְוָה) means expectation or prospect—the same word used for the scarlet cord Rahab hung from her window (Joshua 2:18, 21), symbolizing hope of deliverance. Naomi protests she has no such hope, no thread of expectation to cling to. Even if the absurd occurred—remarriage "tonight" (halaylah, הַלַּיְלָה, emphasizing immediacy) and bearing sons—this wouldn't help her daughters-in-law.
The verse's piling of hypotheticals (if... if... and also...) creates rhetorical force: even granting every impossible condition, the logic still fails. Naomi's argument moves from biological impossibility (too old) through hypothetical absurdity (remarriage tonight, immediate conception, bearing sons) toward the crushing conclusion in verse 13: even if all this happened, the daughters-in-law couldn't reasonably wait. Her reasoning is irrefutable by human calculation—yet God's redemption operates beyond human calculation, accomplishing what seems impossible.
The hypothetical construction "If I should say, I have hope" (ki amarta yesh-li tikvah, כִּי אָמַרְתִּי יֶשׁ־לִי תִקְוָה) introduces an impossible scenario. "Hope" (tikvah, תִּקְוָה) means expectation or prospect—the same word used for the scarlet cord Rahab hung from her window (Joshua 2:18, 21), symbolizing hope of deliverance. Naomi protests she has no such hope, no thread of expectation to cling to. Even if the absurd occurred—remarriage "tonight" (halaylah, הַלַּיְלָה, emphasizing immediacy) and bearing sons—this wouldn't help her daughters-in-law.
The verse's piling of hypotheticals (if... if... and also...) creates rhetorical force: even granting every impossible condition, the logic still fails. Naomi's argument moves from biological impossibility (too old) through hypothetical absurdity (remarriage tonight, immediate conception, bearing sons) toward the crushing conclusion in verse 13: even if all this happened, the daughters-in-law couldn't reasonably wait. Her reasoning is irrefutable by human calculation—yet God's redemption operates beyond human calculation, accomplishing what seems impossible.
Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me. tarry: Heb. hope it grieveth: Heb. I have much bitterness
View commentary
Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me. Naomi completes her argument with two rhetorical questions expecting negative answers. "Would ye tarry for them till they were grown?" (hallahen tesabernah ad asher yigdalu, הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ) uses the verb sabar (שָׂבַר), meaning "wait" or "hope"—asking whether they would realistically wait 15-20 years for hypothetical sons to reach marriageable age. The second question intensifies: "would ye stay for them from having husbands?" (hallahen te'agennah levilti heyot le'ish, הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ), asking whether they would forfeit marriage and motherhood during their prime childbearing years. Both questions obviously expect "No" as answer.
"Nay, my daughters" (al benotay, אַל בְּנֹתַי) literally means "No, my daughters" or "Don't, my daughters"—emphatic prohibition against such foolishness. Then comes Naomi's bitter theology: "it grieveth me much for your sakes" (mar-li me'od mikkhem, מַר־לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם) uses the same root (marar, מָרַר, "bitter") she later applies to herself in verse 20 ("call me Mara"). The phrase "much more bitter to me than to you" suggests her grief exceeds theirs because she understands the full hopelessness.
Most significantly, she declares "the hand of the LORD is gone out against me" (yatse'ah vi yad-YHWH, יָצְאָה בִי יַד־יְהוָה). This is covenant language—God's "hand" represents His powerful intervention, usually for deliverance (Exodus 3:20; Deuteronomy 4:34) but sometimes for judgment (1 Samuel 5:6; 12:15). Naomi interprets her losses as divine opposition, not recognizing that God's hand "going out" would ultimately bring redemption. Her theology of suffering lacks the perspective that Romans 8:28 and Joseph's life (Genesis 50:20) later illustrate—God works all things, even apparent judgment, toward redemptive purposes. Naomi's bitter providential interpretation blinds her to God's hidden grace already at work.
"Nay, my daughters" (al benotay, אַל בְּנֹתַי) literally means "No, my daughters" or "Don't, my daughters"—emphatic prohibition against such foolishness. Then comes Naomi's bitter theology: "it grieveth me much for your sakes" (mar-li me'od mikkhem, מַר־לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם) uses the same root (marar, מָרַר, "bitter") she later applies to herself in verse 20 ("call me Mara"). The phrase "much more bitter to me than to you" suggests her grief exceeds theirs because she understands the full hopelessness.
Most significantly, she declares "the hand of the LORD is gone out against me" (yatse'ah vi yad-YHWH, יָצְאָה בִי יַד־יְהוָה). This is covenant language—God's "hand" represents His powerful intervention, usually for deliverance (Exodus 3:20; Deuteronomy 4:34) but sometimes for judgment (1 Samuel 5:6; 12:15). Naomi interprets her losses as divine opposition, not recognizing that God's hand "going out" would ultimately bring redemption. Her theology of suffering lacks the perspective that Romans 8:28 and Joseph's life (Genesis 50:20) later illustrate—God works all things, even apparent judgment, toward redemptive purposes. Naomi's bitter providential interpretation blinds her to God's hidden grace already at work.
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
View commentary
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her. Naomi's stark reasoning produces emotional response: "they lifted up their voice, and wept again" (vatissenah qolan vatibkenah od, וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד). The verb "lifted up their voice" is Hebrew idiom for loud, unrestrained crying. "Again" (od, עוֹד) refers back to verse 9's weeping, suggesting brief respite followed by renewed grief. The weeping reflects the heartbreak of an impossible choice—love for Naomi versus practical necessity, loyalty versus survival, costly faith versus secure unbelief.
Then comes the decisive moment: "Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her." The contrast is stark, introduced by the adversative "but" (ve). Orpah's kiss (vatishaq, וַתִּשַּׁק) signifies farewell—affectionate but final. She chooses the reasonable path Naomi urged, returning to family, security, and familiar gods (v. 15). There's no indication Orpah's choice was wrong in purely human terms; she did exactly what Naomi advised and cultural expectation demanded. Yet she disappears from the narrative, her name (possibly related to "neck" or "back") symbolizing one who turns back.
Ruth, however, "clave unto her" (davqah vah, דָּבְקָה בָהּ). The verb davaq (דָּבַק, "cling," "cleave," "hold fast") is the same used in Genesis 2:24 for marriage union ("shall cleave unto his wife") and in Deuteronomy 10:20; 11:22; 30:20 for Israel's covenant loyalty to God ("cleave unto him"). This is not casual association but covenant commitment—Ruth bonds herself to Naomi with marriage-like and worship-like devotion. The word suggests being glued together, inseparably joined. Ruth's clinging embodies covenant faithfulness (hesed, חֶסֶד, v. 8) in action, becoming living testimony to the loyalty Israel was called to show Yahweh. Her choice illustrates saving faith: clinging to God's people and God's covenant despite cost, uncertainty, and contrary human wisdom.
Then comes the decisive moment: "Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her." The contrast is stark, introduced by the adversative "but" (ve). Orpah's kiss (vatishaq, וַתִּשַּׁק) signifies farewell—affectionate but final. She chooses the reasonable path Naomi urged, returning to family, security, and familiar gods (v. 15). There's no indication Orpah's choice was wrong in purely human terms; she did exactly what Naomi advised and cultural expectation demanded. Yet she disappears from the narrative, her name (possibly related to "neck" or "back") symbolizing one who turns back.
Ruth, however, "clave unto her" (davqah vah, דָּבְקָה בָהּ). The verb davaq (דָּבַק, "cling," "cleave," "hold fast") is the same used in Genesis 2:24 for marriage union ("shall cleave unto his wife") and in Deuteronomy 10:20; 11:22; 30:20 for Israel's covenant loyalty to God ("cleave unto him"). This is not casual association but covenant commitment—Ruth bonds herself to Naomi with marriage-like and worship-like devotion. The word suggests being glued together, inseparably joined. Ruth's clinging embodies covenant faithfulness (hesed, חֶסֶד, v. 8) in action, becoming living testimony to the loyalty Israel was called to show Yahweh. Her choice illustrates saving faith: clinging to God's people and God's covenant despite cost, uncertainty, and contrary human wisdom.
And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.
View commentary
Naomi's urging continues as she points to Orpah's decision: "Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law." This verse captures a decisive moment where the two Moabite women make opposite choices regarding covenant faith. The Hebrew uses the perfect tense shavah (שָׁבָה, "she has returned") to indicate Orpah's completed action—she has definitively turned back to Moab.
Significantly, Naomi identifies Orpah's return as both ethnic and religious: "unto her people, and unto her gods." The plural "gods" (eloheha, אֱלֹהֶיהָ) indicates the polytheistic worship Orpah was resuming. The chief Moabite deity was Chemosh, to whom child sacrifices were offered (2 Kings 3:27). By returning to "her gods," Orpah was abandoning whatever knowledge of Yahweh she had gained through marriage into an Israelite family. This demonstrates that mere proximity to God's people doesn't guarantee genuine conversion—Orpah had lived among believers for perhaps a decade but ultimately chose familiar paganism over costly covenant commitment.
Naomi's command "return thou after thy sister in law" shows her continued attempt to release Ruth from obligation. The phrase "after thy sister in law" (acharei yevimtekh, אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ) emphasizes following Orpah's example. Naomi presents the easier path—return to family, security, and familiar religion. This makes Ruth's subsequent refusal even more remarkable. She chooses the harder path not from lack of alternatives but from genuine faith conviction. The contrast between Orpah and Ruth illustrates Jesus' teaching about the narrow and wide gates (Matthew 7:13-14)—many choose the easy path back to the world, but few choose the costly way of discipleship.
Significantly, Naomi identifies Orpah's return as both ethnic and religious: "unto her people, and unto her gods." The plural "gods" (eloheha, אֱלֹהֶיהָ) indicates the polytheistic worship Orpah was resuming. The chief Moabite deity was Chemosh, to whom child sacrifices were offered (2 Kings 3:27). By returning to "her gods," Orpah was abandoning whatever knowledge of Yahweh she had gained through marriage into an Israelite family. This demonstrates that mere proximity to God's people doesn't guarantee genuine conversion—Orpah had lived among believers for perhaps a decade but ultimately chose familiar paganism over costly covenant commitment.
Naomi's command "return thou after thy sister in law" shows her continued attempt to release Ruth from obligation. The phrase "after thy sister in law" (acharei yevimtekh, אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ) emphasizes following Orpah's example. Naomi presents the easier path—return to family, security, and familiar religion. This makes Ruth's subsequent refusal even more remarkable. She chooses the harder path not from lack of alternatives but from genuine faith conviction. The contrast between Orpah and Ruth illustrates Jesus' teaching about the narrow and wide gates (Matthew 7:13-14)—many choose the easy path back to the world, but few choose the costly way of discipleship.
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Intreat: or, Be not against me
View commentary
Ruth's response to Naomi's urging begins with a plea: "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee" (al-tiphge'i-bi le'ozvekh lashuv me'acharayikh, אַל־תִּפְגְּעִי־בִי לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ). The verb paga (פָּגַע, "intreat" or "urge") means to press, entreat, or encounter with force. Ruth pleads with Naomi to stop pressuring her to return to Moab. The infinitives "to leave" (azav, עָזַב) and "to return" (shuv, שׁוּב) express actions Ruth refuses—she will neither abandon Naomi nor turn back from following her.
Ruth's commitment then unfolds in a beautiful series of parallel declarations. "For whither thou goest, I will go" (ki el-asher telkhi elekh, כִּי אֶל־אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ)—she commits to shared journey and destination. "And where thou lodgest, I will lodge" (uve'asher talini alin, וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין)—she commits to permanent residence, not temporary accompaniment. The verb lin (לִין) means to spend the night or dwell, indicating settled habitation rather than brief visit.
The theological heart follows: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (amekh ami velohayikh Elohai, עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי). Ruth doesn't merely pledge loyalty to Naomi personally but embraces complete identification with Israel and Yahweh. The order is significant—committing to God's people precedes but implies committing to God Himself. She renounces Chemosh (Moab's deity) to worship Yahweh, abandons Moabite identity to become Israelite, and leaves her homeland to join covenant community. This is the Old Testament's clearest statement of genuine conversion—not merely behavioral change but identity transformation, covenant commitment, and wholehearted devotion to the true God. Ruth's declaration anticipates the New Testament truth that genuine faith in Christ produces identification with His people (the church) and total life reorientation. Her commitment to Naomi models hesed (חֶסֶד, covenant loyalty), the same faithful love that characterizes God's relationship with His people. This Moabite woman demonstrates covenant faithfulness that surpasses many Israelites during the judges period, proving that God's election transcends ethnicity and is received through faith.
Ruth's commitment then unfolds in a beautiful series of parallel declarations. "For whither thou goest, I will go" (ki el-asher telkhi elekh, כִּי אֶל־אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ)—she commits to shared journey and destination. "And where thou lodgest, I will lodge" (uve'asher talini alin, וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין)—she commits to permanent residence, not temporary accompaniment. The verb lin (לִין) means to spend the night or dwell, indicating settled habitation rather than brief visit.
The theological heart follows: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (amekh ami velohayikh Elohai, עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי). Ruth doesn't merely pledge loyalty to Naomi personally but embraces complete identification with Israel and Yahweh. The order is significant—committing to God's people precedes but implies committing to God Himself. She renounces Chemosh (Moab's deity) to worship Yahweh, abandons Moabite identity to become Israelite, and leaves her homeland to join covenant community. This is the Old Testament's clearest statement of genuine conversion—not merely behavioral change but identity transformation, covenant commitment, and wholehearted devotion to the true God. Ruth's declaration anticipates the New Testament truth that genuine faith in Christ produces identification with His people (the church) and total life reorientation. Her commitment to Naomi models hesed (חֶסֶד, covenant loyalty), the same faithful love that characterizes God's relationship with His people. This Moabite woman demonstrates covenant faithfulness that surpasses many Israelites during the judges period, proving that God's election transcends ethnicity and is received through faith.
Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
View commentary
Ruth's declaration reaches its climax with an oath: "Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." The Hebrew construction moves from future commitment ("I will die... I will be buried") to solemn oath invoking divine witness and judgment. This isn't merely emotional sentiment but legally binding covenant language.
The phrase "where thou diest, will I die" commits Ruth beyond Naomi's lifetime. She's not offering temporary companionship until better circumstances arise, but permanent identification unto death. The parallel "there will I be buried" emphasizes perpetual connection—even in death she will remain among God's people rather than return to Moabite burial grounds. Ancient burial practices emphasized resting with one's ancestors, making Ruth's commitment to foreign burial a definitive rejection of Moabite identity.
The oath formula "the LORD do so to me, and more also" (koh ya'aseh YHWH li vekhoh yosif, כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לִי וְכֹה יֹסִיף) was standard legal language invoking divine curse for oath-breaking (see 1 Samuel 3:17; 2 Samuel 3:35). Significantly, Ruth invokes "Yahweh"—the covenant name of Israel's God—demonstrating her theological conversion is complete. She's not hedging by calling God "Elohim" (a generic term) but specifically embracing Yahweh as her God. The condition "if ought but death part thee and me" (ki hammavet yafreed beini uveinekh, כִּי הַמָּוֶת יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ) means only death will separate them—nothing else, no hardship, poverty, or social pressure will make Ruth abandon Naomi or Israel.
The phrase "where thou diest, will I die" commits Ruth beyond Naomi's lifetime. She's not offering temporary companionship until better circumstances arise, but permanent identification unto death. The parallel "there will I be buried" emphasizes perpetual connection—even in death she will remain among God's people rather than return to Moabite burial grounds. Ancient burial practices emphasized resting with one's ancestors, making Ruth's commitment to foreign burial a definitive rejection of Moabite identity.
The oath formula "the LORD do so to me, and more also" (koh ya'aseh YHWH li vekhoh yosif, כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לִי וְכֹה יֹסִיף) was standard legal language invoking divine curse for oath-breaking (see 1 Samuel 3:17; 2 Samuel 3:35). Significantly, Ruth invokes "Yahweh"—the covenant name of Israel's God—demonstrating her theological conversion is complete. She's not hedging by calling God "Elohim" (a generic term) but specifically embracing Yahweh as her God. The condition "if ought but death part thee and me" (ki hammavet yafreed beini uveinekh, כִּי הַמָּוֶת יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ) means only death will separate them—nothing else, no hardship, poverty, or social pressure will make Ruth abandon Naomi or Israel.
When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. was: Heb. strengthened herself
View commentary
The narrative's response to Ruth's oath is remarkably brief: "When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her." The Hebrew phrase "she was stedfastly minded" (mitametzet hi, מִתְאַמֶּצֶת הִיא) uses a participle form of amatz (אָמַץ), meaning to strengthen oneself, be determined, or show courageous resolve. This same verbal root appears in Joshua 1:6-9 where God repeatedly commands Joshua to "be strong and courageous."
Naomi's cessation of speech—"she left speaking unto her" (vatechdal ledabber eileha, וַתֶּחְדַּל לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ)—demonstrates her recognition of Ruth's irrevocable decision. The verb chadal (חָדַל) means to cease, refrain, or stop entirely. Naomi sees that further argument is futile; Ruth has crossed a threshold of commitment that cannot be reversed by persuasion. There's wisdom in Naomi's silence—she respects Ruth's agency rather than continuing to undermine a decision made with full knowledge and solemn oath.
This verse's brevity after Ruth's eloquent confession creates literary emphasis on Ruth's words standing unchallenged and authoritative. The narrative doesn't record Naomi's response or emotional reaction—only her acceptance of Ruth's determination. This silence underscores that genuine conversion speaks for itself through unwavering commitment. The theological pattern established here—Gentile inclusion through radical faith commitment—anticipates the gospel era when faith in Christ, not ethnic descent, determines covenant membership (Galatians 3:26-29; Ephesians 2:11-22).
Naomi's cessation of speech—"she left speaking unto her" (vatechdal ledabber eileha, וַתֶּחְדַּל לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ)—demonstrates her recognition of Ruth's irrevocable decision. The verb chadal (חָדַל) means to cease, refrain, or stop entirely. Naomi sees that further argument is futile; Ruth has crossed a threshold of commitment that cannot be reversed by persuasion. There's wisdom in Naomi's silence—she respects Ruth's agency rather than continuing to undermine a decision made with full knowledge and solemn oath.
This verse's brevity after Ruth's eloquent confession creates literary emphasis on Ruth's words standing unchallenged and authoritative. The narrative doesn't record Naomi's response or emotional reaction—only her acceptance of Ruth's determination. This silence underscores that genuine conversion speaks for itself through unwavering commitment. The theological pattern established here—Gentile inclusion through radical faith commitment—anticipates the gospel era when faith in Christ, not ethnic descent, determines covenant membership (Galatians 3:26-29; Ephesians 2:11-22).
So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?
View commentary
The narrative notes the completion of their journey: "So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?" The Hebrew emphasizes their partnership—"they two" (shetehem, שְׁתֵּיהֶם)—highlighting that Ruth and Naomi journey together as equals, not servant and mistress. The verb "went" (telakhnah, תֵּלַכְנָה) indicates their sustained traveling until reaching destination.
Bethlehem's reaction—"all the city was moved" (vateham kol-ha'ir, וַתֵּהֹם כָּל־הָעִיר)—uses a verb meaning to be stirred up, excited, or disturbed. The entire community responds with commotion at their arrival. The question "Is this Naomi?" (hazot Na'omi, הֲזֹאת נָעֳמִי) suggests shocked disbelief. The demonstrative "this" carries undertones of surprise or even horror—can this be the same woman who left?
The community's shock likely stemmed from multiple factors: Naomi's decade-long absence, her return without husband or sons, her physical deterioration from grief and hardship, and her unexpected companion—a foreign Moabite woman. Their question foreshadows Naomi's response in verse 20 where she rejects the name "Naomi" (pleasant) and asks to be called "Mara" (bitter). The narrative structure creates dramatic tension—Ruth has committed herself to Naomi and Israel, but what kind of reception will she receive?
Bethlehem's reaction—"all the city was moved" (vateham kol-ha'ir, וַתֵּהֹם כָּל־הָעִיר)—uses a verb meaning to be stirred up, excited, or disturbed. The entire community responds with commotion at their arrival. The question "Is this Naomi?" (hazot Na'omi, הֲזֹאת נָעֳמִי) suggests shocked disbelief. The demonstrative "this" carries undertones of surprise or even horror—can this be the same woman who left?
The community's shock likely stemmed from multiple factors: Naomi's decade-long absence, her return without husband or sons, her physical deterioration from grief and hardship, and her unexpected companion—a foreign Moabite woman. Their question foreshadows Naomi's response in verse 20 where she rejects the name "Naomi" (pleasant) and asks to be called "Mara" (bitter). The narrative structure creates dramatic tension—Ruth has committed herself to Naomi and Israel, but what kind of reception will she receive?
And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me. Naomi: that is, Pleasant Mara: that is, Bitter
View commentary
Naomi's response reveals her spiritual state: "Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me." She rejects her given name "Naomi" (Na'omi, נָעֳמִי, "pleasant/lovely") and requests instead "Mara" (Mara, מָרָא, "bitter"). This name change expresses her perception that God has transformed her life from pleasant to bitter. The wordplay is deliberate—her name no longer fits her experience.
Significantly, Naomi attributes her suffering to "the Almighty" (Shaddai, שַׁדַּי), a divine name emphasizing God's power and sovereign control. This title appears frequently in Job, another biblical book wrestling with suffering's theological meaning. By using "Shaddai" rather than the covenant name "Yahweh," Naomi may be emphasizing God's overwhelming power that has crushed her, or simply using the traditional patriarchal name for God that expresses His absolute sovereignty.
The phrase "dealt very bitterly" translates hemar li Shaddai me'od (הֵמַר לִי שַׁדַּי מְאֹד), literally "has made very bitter to me the Almighty." The causative form of marar (מָרַר, to be bitter) indicates God actively caused her bitterness. Naomi doesn't see her suffering as random tragedy but as divine action. While her theology is incomplete (she fails to see God's redemptive purposes already working through Ruth), her honesty about feeling that God has dealt harshly with her represents authentic lament found throughout Psalms and biblical prayer.
Significantly, Naomi attributes her suffering to "the Almighty" (Shaddai, שַׁדַּי), a divine name emphasizing God's power and sovereign control. This title appears frequently in Job, another biblical book wrestling with suffering's theological meaning. By using "Shaddai" rather than the covenant name "Yahweh," Naomi may be emphasizing God's overwhelming power that has crushed her, or simply using the traditional patriarchal name for God that expresses His absolute sovereignty.
The phrase "dealt very bitterly" translates hemar li Shaddai me'od (הֵמַר לִי שַׁדַּי מְאֹד), literally "has made very bitter to me the Almighty." The causative form of marar (מָרַר, to be bitter) indicates God actively caused her bitterness. Naomi doesn't see her suffering as random tragedy but as divine action. While her theology is incomplete (she fails to see God's redemptive purposes already working through Ruth), her honesty about feeling that God has dealt harshly with her represents authentic lament found throughout Psalms and biblical prayer.
I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?
View commentary
Naomi continues her lament: "I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?" The contrast between "full" (male'ah, מְלֵאָה) and "empty" (reqam, רֵיקָם) structures her self-understanding. She left Bethlehem with husband and two sons—a complete family. She returns alone, without the relationships that gave her identity, security, and hope.
Significantly, Naomi says "the LORD" (YHWH, יְהוָה) brought her back empty and testified against her. This shifts from "Shaddai" (Almighty) in the previous verse to the covenant name. Her use of Yahweh indicates she still sees herself in covenant relationship with Israel's God, even while feeling He has become her adversary. The phrase "testified against me" (ana bi YHWH, עָנָה בִי יְהוָה) uses legal terminology—God has witnessed against her in divine court, as if pronouncing sentence.
The parallelism "the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me" reinforces her perception of God as the author of her suffering. The verb "afflicted" (hera li, הֵרַע לִי) means "has done evil to me" or "has brought calamity upon me." Naomi's theology here reflects the common ancient understanding that all circumstances—good and bad—flow from divine sovereignty. While incomplete (she doesn't yet see God's redemptive work through Ruth), her theology rightly acknowledges God's comprehensive control over life's events.
Significantly, Naomi says "the LORD" (YHWH, יְהוָה) brought her back empty and testified against her. This shifts from "Shaddai" (Almighty) in the previous verse to the covenant name. Her use of Yahweh indicates she still sees herself in covenant relationship with Israel's God, even while feeling He has become her adversary. The phrase "testified against me" (ana bi YHWH, עָנָה בִי יְהוָה) uses legal terminology—God has witnessed against her in divine court, as if pronouncing sentence.
The parallelism "the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me" reinforces her perception of God as the author of her suffering. The verb "afflicted" (hera li, הֵרַע לִי) means "has done evil to me" or "has brought calamity upon me." Naomi's theology here reflects the common ancient understanding that all circumstances—good and bad—flow from divine sovereignty. While incomplete (she doesn't yet see God's redemptive work through Ruth), her theology rightly acknowledges God's comprehensive control over life's events.
So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
View commentary
The chapter concludes with summary and transition: "So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest." The narrator carefully identifies Ruth as "the Moabitess" (ha-Moaviyah, הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה), emphasizing her foreign origin. This ethnic marker appears throughout Ruth, reminding readers of the extraordinary nature of her inclusion despite Deuteronomy 23:3-6's prohibition.
The phrase "her daughter in law" (kallatah, כַּלָּתָהּ) establishes Ruth's relationship to Naomi while "with her" emphasizes their partnership. The narrator refuses to let Ruth disappear into Naomi's shadow—she is consistently identified and honored despite her foreign status. The repetition "returned... which returned" underscores the journey's completion and Ruth's commitment—she has fully left Moab for Israel.
The chronological notation "in the beginning of barley harvest" provides crucial temporal context. Barley harvest in Judah occurred in late April/early May, the first grain harvest of the season. This timing is providentially significant—they arrive when food is available and the gleaning laws (Leviticus 19:9-10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) provide means for poor widows to gather food. The narrative will immediately move to Ruth's gleaning in Boaz's field, demonstrating how God's law and providence work together to provide for vulnerable members of society.
The phrase "her daughter in law" (kallatah, כַּלָּתָהּ) establishes Ruth's relationship to Naomi while "with her" emphasizes their partnership. The narrator refuses to let Ruth disappear into Naomi's shadow—she is consistently identified and honored despite her foreign status. The repetition "returned... which returned" underscores the journey's completion and Ruth's commitment—she has fully left Moab for Israel.
The chronological notation "in the beginning of barley harvest" provides crucial temporal context. Barley harvest in Judah occurred in late April/early May, the first grain harvest of the season. This timing is providentially significant—they arrive when food is available and the gleaning laws (Leviticus 19:9-10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) provide means for poor widows to gather food. The narrative will immediately move to Ruth's gleaning in Boaz's field, demonstrating how God's law and providence work together to provide for vulnerable members of society.