1:1 In the first clause of 1:1 the narrator identifies the drama’s broad temporal context: “in the days when the judges ruled.” This period of Israel’s history occurs between Joshua’s death and Saul’s coronation and is chronicled mostly in the book of Judges (cf. Introduction: Overview). Judges evocatively summarizes this era’s spiritual and moral atmosphere: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). Spiritual and moral anarchy seemed to prevail.

The second clause of Ruth 1:1 reports the specific occasion precipitating the events reported in the setting: a famine. Famine in the Promised Land does not bode well. It not only creates an obvious crisis but also is possibly connected to divine judgment. Through Moses the Lord promised to reward Israel’s covenant faithfulness with blessing (including the land’s fruitfulness; Deut. 28:1–4) and to judge covenant unfaithfulness with curse (including famine; Deut. 28:15–68; cf. Gen. 3:17–19). While the narrator does not explain the origin of this particular famine, a famine in Judah at this point in redemptive history may imply some kind of unfaithfulness among the people, though not necessarily among Elimelech’s family in particular.

The focus then narrows to a “man of Bethlehem in Judah” who leaves famine-struck Bethlehem with his wife and two sons to “sojourn in the country of Moab,” east of the Dead Sea. Although the Moabites and the Israelites both descended from Terah (Gen. 19:36–37), interactions between the two people groups were often hostile (Num. 22:1–24:25; 25:1; Deut. 23:3–6; Judg. 3:12–30). The narrator offers no explicit evaluation of Elimelech’s decision to leave Bethlehem, so readers must draw their own conclusions. The fact that the famine ironically strikes “Bethlehem” (“house of bread”) intensifies the tone of tragic deviation from idealized covenant life in the land. Moreover, an Israelite’s choosing to leave Canaan to sojourn in Moab likewise casts a foreboding shadow.

1:2–5 The narrator continues setting up the plot by identifying the Judahite family and reporting its settling in Moab (Ruth 1:2). The narrator gives the family’s personal names and clan: they are “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah.” Notably, this is also the clan, hometown, and ancestral territory of King David, the significance of which the book’s conclusion clarifies (4:17–22; cf. Gen. 49:10; 1 Sam. 17:12).

After the family begins residing in Moab, Elimelech dies. The death of the “husband of Naomi” creates a crisis for Naomi, since she is “left” with just her two sons. (Calling Elimelech Naomi’s husband underscores her loss.) Eventually life goes on: Naomi’s two sons marry Moabite women, and they “lived there” for about a decade. The family’s situatedness in Moab subtly evolves from “sojourn” (Ruth 1:1) to “remained there” (v. 2) to “about ten years” (v. 4).

Here again the narrator does not evaluate these residential or marital decisions explicitly, which forces readers to draw their own conclusions. The law never forbids marriage to Moabites specifically (as it does Canaanites; e.g., Deut. 7:1–3) but does prohibit Moabites from entering the assembly to the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3). Marrying a member of a noncovenant group threatens one’s fidelity to the Lord (e.g., 1 Kings 11:4; Ezra 10:3; Nehemiah 13; Ps. 106:35–36). Are Naomi’s sons acting unfaithfully by marrying Moabite women? Should Naomi have guided her sons differently? Is the family acting unfaithfully by remaining in Moab? Despite the ambiguity concerning these matters, the plot unambiguously confirms the Lord’s providence through it all.

Eventually, both Naomi’s “sons” (or “children”) also die, so that “the woman” is “left” without any remaining men in her family. Calling Naomi “the woman” stresses her vulnerability as a sojourner without husband or sons in a society in which legal and economic security depends on a male family member, while calling her sons “children” stresses her maternal agony (cf. comment on 4:13–17). On the whole, the setting depicts a traumatized woman in cataclysmic crisis. She has been devastated by overwhelming loss and now lacks access to socioeconomic support. What will become of her?

1:6–7 The plot’s main action begins when Naomi decides to rise with her daughters-in-law and return home in response to a report in Moab’s fields that the Lord has “visited his people.” Divine visitations of his covenant people can refer to the Lord’s judgment (e.g., Ex. 34:7) or grace (e.g., Gen. 21:1; 50:24–25; Ex. 4:31; 1 Sam. 2:21). In this case the Lord has graciously sent his people harvest-yielding rain, thereby he has “given them food” (or “given them bread,” a likely wordplay with “Bethlehem” [“house of bread”]). The Lord’s benevolence thereby initiates the plot’s action, as it also will the plot’s resolution (cf. comment on 4:13–17).

The concept of returning lies at the heart of scene 1, which incorporates twelve forms of “return” (Ruth 1:6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 [2x], 16, 21, 22 [2x]). Double uses of “return” (Hb. shuv) occur at the scene’s introduction and conclusion (vv. 6–7, 21). The first two instances of “return” specify the origin (i.e., Moab) and intended destination (i.e., Judah) of Naomi’s journey. Scene 1’s return motif evokes a rich biblical-theological theme involving the Lord and his people’s turning toward one another. Deuteronomy 30:1–10, for example, features the Hebrew word for “return” to prophesy of the Lord’s merciful turning to his people, which leads to their returning to Canaan from exile and turning to him in repentance (Deut. 30:1, 2 [2x], 3 [2x], 8, 9, 10).8 Although the narrator of Ruth seems to draw on this broader biblical-theological pattern, this does not demand interpreting Naomi’s return to Bethlehem as repentance from sin. At the least, the thematic emphasis on Naomi’s returning in response to a benevolent divine visitation raises expectations among a biblically informed audience that a happy reversal awaits Naomi in Judah.

1:8–9 Having established Naomi’s afflictions (Ruth 1:1–5) and her resolve to return (vv. 6–7), the narrator slows the narrative tempo and develops the characters. Scene 1 unfolds mostly through dialogue that intensifies the pathos. For example, Naomi’s opening speech to her daughters-in-law (vv. 8–9a) and their response (v. 9b) divulge their profound mutual love.

Naomi wants her daughters-in-law to remarry and bear children, not least since marriage and childbearing typically afford a woman security. In Naomi’s estimation, Moabite Orpah and Ruth would face grim prospects of remarriage and childbearing in Judah. So Naomi instructs each to “return” to the house of her mother, who presumably will ensure that each remarries (cf. Gen. 24:28). Naomi then blesses them.9 Specifically, she petitions the Lord to “deal kindly” them, just as they have done for her and for “the dead” (i.e., Naomi’s sons), and to give them “rest” through remarriage.10 At least in part, Naomi is entrusting Orpah and Ruth to the Lord’s care (cf. comment on 1:14b–18). She acknowledges the Lord’s ability to bless, even as she soon will articulate skepticism about his willingness to bless her personally and therefore any whose lot is tied to hers, including her daughters-in-law.

Naomi’s blessing introduces two important themes in the book: kindness and rest. The phrase “deal kindly” might be translated more woodenly “do/perform loving kindness.” The word for covenant “kindness” (Hb. hesed), which occurs three times in the book (1:8; 2:20; 3:10), is often used in the OT to describe the Lord’s loving kindness toward his redeemed people (cf. Introduction: Theology of Ruth). The “rest” (cf. 3:1) Naomi envisions pertains specifically to the security a new marriage and home would provide. But in a drama that transpires “in the days when the judges ruled” (1:1) and culminates in David’s genealogy, “rest” hints at greater significance (cf. comment on 4:17–22). That is, the widows need the security a husband provides, and the whole covenant family needs the security a king provides. The explicit yearning for “rest,” then, subtly paves the way for the book’s culminating focus on the Davidic dynasty.11

In the moments on the road, however, such “rest” seems elusive for the widows. Naomi kisses her daughters-in-law and bids them farewell. They “lifted up their voices and wept.”

1:10–14a “No, we will return with you to your people,” Orpah and Ruth protest. So Naomi intensifies her original instruction to her daughters-in-law. She twice commands Orpah and Ruth, whom she tenderly calls “my daughters” (vv. 11, 12, 13; cf. 2:2, 8, 22; 3:1, 10, 11, 16, 18), to “turn back” (that is, return) and poses a series of rhetorical questions to stress the grim prospects of their security in Judah. For example, Naomi draws attention to her barren-like womb and explains that even if she were to conceive more sons and arrange a marriage between them and her daughters-in-law, the amount of time required for a new son to reach maturity renders such a plan no real solution at all. Naomi is possibly alluding to levirate legislation (Deut. 25:5–6), which aims to support widows by requiring a dead husband’s brother to marry his widow. Naomi is straining to persuade her daughters-in-law to make a sensible choice that has the potential to yield a positive outcome.

To clinch Naomi’s argument, she declares that the Lord is against her, that his “hand . . . has gone out against me.”12 A ruler’s “hand” often connotes his strength and authority (e.g., Ex. 7:5; Deut. 5:15; Judg. 7:9). Sometimes it is the Lord’s own rebellious people against whom he stretches out his arm (e.g., Jer. 21:5) or sends his hand (e.g., Deut. 2:15; Judg. 2:15; 1 Sam. 12:15). Along these lines, Naomi interprets her suffering as resulting from the Lord’s wrath against her (cf. Ruth 1:20–21). She suspects herself to be a target of divine censure and thereby unfit to provide for her daughters-in-law. After Naomi’s urgent appeal, the women once again weep (v. 14a; cf. v. 9). Their anguish sets the stage for the scene’s dramatic turning point.

1:14b–18 The daughters-in-laws’ critical moment of decision is now related. The narrator summarizes their response (v. 14b) and then elaborates (vv. 15–18). Orpah bids Naomi farewell with a kiss (cf. v. 9), but Ruth clings to her. Orpah’s expected decision highlights the astonishing nature of Ruth’s selfless decision (cf. the similar narrative strategy in 4:1–8).13

Ruth decides to “cling” to Naomi despite the grim prospects awaiting her in Judah. Such clinging typifies the unyielding devotion of covenant relationships, such as in the marriage union (Gen. 2:24) or in Israel’s relationship with the Lord (Deut. 10:20). By clinging to widowed Naomi in loyal love, Ruth embodies the essence of God’s law (cf. Rom. 13:8–10). Indeed, Boaz calls Ruth’s devotion to Naomi “kindness” (or “loving kindness”; Ruth 3:10; cf. 2:11), and the Bethlehemite women call it “love” (4:15). Ruth may merely be Naomi’s daughter-in-law (and a Moabite!), but Ruth’s kinship to Naomi is thicker than blood.

Following a terse summary of the turning-point action (v. 14b), the narrator elaborates on Ruth’s devotion to Naomi. Naomi appeals once more to Ruth and urges her to follow after her sister-in-law, Orpah, who has “gone back [i.e., returned] to her people and to her gods.” Ruth, therefore, should “return after” Orpah (v. 15). Naomi’s final appeal reveals the religious implication of Ruth’s decision. Ruth’s returning to her native household would entail returning to her native gods, including Moab’s main territorial deity, Chemosh (cf. Num. 21:29; Judg. 11:24).

Ruth again rejects Naomi’s appeal with the sort of urgency and selfless love that match her mother-in-law’s (Ruth 1:16–17). Ruth reasserts her uncompromising devotion and insists that Naomi must stop asking Ruth to forsake her. Wherever Naomi decides to settle, Ruth will settle. Naomi’s people and God will be Ruth’s people and God. Indeed, Ruth’s loyalty extends beyond this lifetime, since, wherever Naomi dies, Ruth will die and be buried. The fact that Ruth’s emphatic declaration culminates in images of death rather than of prosperity may indicate Ruth’s acquiescence to Naomi’s grim outlook about a widowed sojourner’s life in Judah.14 Ruth’s final words crown her earnest resolve: she invokes a self-imprecatory oath, petitioning the Lord (not Chemosh!) to afflict her were she ever to forsake Naomi (cf. 1 Sam. 20:13).15 Ruth’s relentless resolve convinces Naomi to say no more.

1:19–21 The two widows resume the journey and eventually arrive in Bethlehem. Naomi’s homecoming causes quite a commotion, most likely because she returns with Ruth and without her husband or sons. Naomi’s bereft condition provokes the Bethlehemite women to ask, perhaps in appalling shock, “Is this Naomi?”

Naomi responds to the astonishment in a manner that reveals the gravity of her grief (Ruth 1:20–21). She objects to being called “Naomi” (“Pleasant”; cf. ESV mg.) and instead exhorts them to call her “Mara” (“Bitter”; cf. ESV Mg.). In her view the Lord, to whom she refers twice as “the Almighty” (or “Shaddai”; cf. Gen. 17:1; Ex. 6:3; Ps. 91:1; Job 27:2), has so embittered her (cf. Ruth 1:13) that she has become bitterness personified. Although she left Bethlehem “full,” the Lord has returned her “empty.” Even her complaint’s structure in verse 21 conveys that she feels rejected by the Lord: in Hebrew she begins with “I” and concludes with “the Lord,” putting the two at opposite poles.16 Calling her “Pleasant” would be cruelly ironic, since in her view the Lord has “testified against” (or “answered against”) her and the Almighty has brought evil on her. Naomi’s declared desolation and the fact that she invokes the Lord’s name only indirectly (i.e., in dialogue with other people; vv. 8–9, 13, 20–21) intimate that her physical return to Judah may not signify that she is turning to the Lord in her heart.

Naomi’s complaint raises important questions regarding the nature and causes of suffering, especially among God’s covenant people. In this sense, the book of Ruth shares common themes with the book of Job. Both books portray characters grappling with bitter loss (cf. Job 27:2), and both storylines challenge a simplistic, mechanistic view of that loss. The narrator of Ruth nowhere specifies the direct source(s) of Naomi’s bereavements or whether they result from the Lord’s testimony against her, as Naomi supposes. It is possible that some of Naomi’s affliction relates to the Lord’s discipline for sin (cf. Deut. 8:1–10), perhaps even regarding decisions reported in the drama’s setting (Ruth 1:1–5). But even if the Lord has afflicted her in response to specific sin on her or her family’s part, the Lord disciplines only believers for their ultimate good (e.g., Deut. 8:1–10). His is restorative discipline. Moreover, he promises to grant mercy to those who turn to him from their heart (e.g., Deut. 30:1–10).

Naomi seems to have lost sight of these aspects of the covenant relationship, that the Lord disciplines his people only for their ultimate good and is eager to restore repentant believers.17 It is equally possible, however, that Naomi’s losses do not represent divine disfavor relating to her or her family’s sin but rather result more generally from living in a broken, fallen world. Such loss in this case still falls within the scope of the Lord’s sovereignty. Throughout the Scriptures the Lord promises to show steadfast love to suffering believers, including those who feel forgotten and abandoned in this fallen world (e.g., Psalm 13). He summons his people to turn to him in their affliction. However, rather than lifting her eyes to the Lord and petitioning him to deal kindly with her, Naomi declares herself a target of his wrath and defines herself according to what she lacks.

1:22 Against the backdrop of Naomi’s expressing misery flickers a subtle gleam of hope. In fact, the narrator crafts scene 1 (Ruth 1:6–22) in a manner that gently corrects Naomi’s supposition of her God-forsakenness. The scene’s structure highlights what Naomi has rather than what she lacks: the drama begins with divine benevolence (v. 6), peaks in Ruth’s unyielding loyalty to Naomi (vv. 14b–17), and concludes by emphasizing two visible proofs of the Lord’s grace (v. 22). Specifically, the narrator reports that Naomi returns successfully with Ruth (i.e., Naomi is not utterly “empty”; 1:21; cf. 4:15) and during harvest season. The latter confirms the good news that Naomi heard in the fields of Moab (1:6) and provides a smooth transition to scene 2.

The tangible evidence of the Lord’s benevolence, which ought to have refreshed Naomi’s sense of his mercy, appears not to have alleviated her misery. Naomi’s despondency so dominates her field of vision that she cannot appreciate these signs of the Lord’s loving kindness. She seems to have returned home devoid of hope for meaningful personal restoration. But as the unfolding drama will establish, this scene’s raw portrait of Naomi’s despair sets the stage for the Lord’s merciful renewal of his beloved daughter.