Summary Of Ruth Chapter 1

Ruth chapter 1 provides the backbone and context for the following three chapters, giving reason for the circumstances and decisions made throughout the book, the need and search for security, and the heartfelt declaration of loyalty from Ruth to Naomi.

The book of Ruth provides readers with a real account of real characters, beginning with a famine in Judah “in the days when the judges ruled” (v. 1), resulting in the relocation of Elimelech and his wife, Naomi, and their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, to Moab, where the two sons wed Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah (v.4). The three men in the family die and the women are forced to fend for themselves, so Naomi and her two daughters-in-law set their sights on Judah, despite Naomi’s advice against her daughters following her there (v. 5-7). She warns, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?” (v.11), and she instructs the women to return to their mothers’ houses (v. 8-9). Orpah takes Naomi’s advice but Ruth’s response is much different; instead, she expresses her devotion to Naomi, proclaiming, “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go…where you die, I will die,” (v.

16-17).

This text provides insight to our sex and the bible class on how women and their gender and sexuality were regarded in this time, showing their need for a man to provide security, worth, and

opportunity in order to have a life considered worthwhile. Lastly, the story describes the account of two women and the love and devotion that can occur between them to sustain their lives, and it lends support in redefining what the bible says about love and family.
The “loyalty or faithfulness arising from commitment”, also known as chesed, between Ruth and Naomi is the main theme of this text, and is the motivation for the actions of the characters (HCSB, 382). Ruth goes as far as to vow to adopt a “new people, a new ethnic identity, along with a new faith” common to Naomi’s (HCSB, 382); this would not have been an easy decision considering Israelites and Moabites were “hated rivals and enemies” (Knust, 34). This unusual covenant and devotion between these two women of different ethnicities has been regarded as so inspirational and worthy of being imitated that verses 16 and 17 are read at marriage ceremonies today (Knust, 35). The relationship between Ruth and Naomi has an underlying tension because in the time Ruth was written, the Israelites and Moabites were not on good terms and the Israelites were commanded to avoid the Moabites, for according to the book of Numbers, they had led them to false gods in the past; the Israelites referred to the Moabites as sexually immoral because they came from an incestuous relationship between Lot, Abraham’s brother, and his daughter (Knust, 34). Since Ruth is the only book in the Hebrew bible that focuses on the story of a non-Israelite woman (Knust, 34-35), this story could have been used to support the Israelite’s cause to show the sexual immorality of the Moabites by the way in which she seduces Boaz with ulterior and self-serving motives (Class notes, 9/23/15), or, like Knust points out, it could show a different perspective than expected and encourage the way in which a foreign and destitute woman beats all odds (Knust, 34). However, we see that the only way in which the two women can secure their future is through the use and help of a man and the only man who can save them from their poverty stricken lives is a go’el, which is their male next of kin and the one with “the right to redeem” the widow and the first husband’s property (Class notes, 9/23/15). Levirate marriage, the traditional approach to death of a husband, is characterized by the widowed wife marrying a surviving brother of her first husband so that the property, including herself, can stay in the family lines (Knust, 34). In verse 11 and 12, Naomi states that she has no hope and is not valuable to her widowed daughters-in-law because she has no sons left for them to marry, which constricts the opportunities for females under the Levirate marriage law, so the sensible and customary response would have been for them to return to their mothers’ houses and find new husbands. The Levirate marriage law also gives evidence that in this time period and culture, women were regarded equally with property, and this male-dominated society left little room for success without the companion of a man, leading to the need for these two women to devoutly provide for one another (Knust, 37). This relationship displays an atypical family unit for this time, providing support for the importance of love and desire over institutional recognition when considering what makes a family (Knust, 33). On one hand, we see that the women, one of which is of hated ethnicity, can be regarded as heroes and bold agents for “taking the initiative and working out their own destiny” and overcoming the societal system by constructing a successful plan to continue the family name (Knust, 37). On the other hand, we see the women playing right into the social system by working only within the boundaries and laws set by the society, such as the Levirate marriage law, and using a male as the main ticket out of poverty and into a secure future (Class notes, 9/23/15).