The irony of Bethlehem (‘house of bread’) being without bread is the first clue, revealing Naomi’s trauma, the testing of her faith and adding to the confusion of how to take leave of her two daughters-in-law. The loss of her husband and two sons leaves her with a total sense of emptiness and an apparent inability to see Yahweh’s provision and promises regarding Canaan – the land of God’s promise known for its imagery of provision as the land of milk and honey (Ex 3:17). Her very real sorrow and bereavement, having suffered loss physically and emotionally inevitably affect her spiritual relationship with Yahweh. This is illustrated in different ways.

Firstly, after she loses her husband and two sons in Moab, Naomi, with great conviction, urges her two daughters-in-law to return to Moab where they will find ‘rest’, because there Yahweh will give them Moabite husbands (Rt 1:8, 9). How can she think of Moab as the blessed place? But the story is also more personal. These two Moabite wives brought ḥesed into her life and the lives of her sons. But this does not feature in her lament at the end of her journey back to Bethlehem. There she blames Yahweh for making life bitter, removing all the sweetness of living. Wardlaw (2015:39), however, looks at the broader picture which must pose a problem for the reader. Moab is a land cursed by God, a constant temptation luring Israelites to their god, Baal Peor; although in the time of Ruth, there seems to have been free travel to Moab and back (Lund 1997:944–946). In addition, if there had been grandsons born to Naomi, they would not be able to enter the temple for 10 generations (Dt 23:3–6; Num 22–24; 25:1–3, 9; 31:8, 16; Jude 11). Clearly, the ḥesed enjoyed from God was to be seen at a more personal than at a national level.

Secondly, this confusion of where the blessing of Yahweh can be found, is further highlighted by the inclusion around the chapter: ‘went from Bethlehem to Moab’ (Rt 1:1) and ‘went back from Moab to Bethlehem’ (v. 22). It is interesting to note that the beginning and ending letters of both places are also the same but in inverted order: B-m … M-b … M-b … B-m. Each destination is used five times as if they were destinations of equal choice. That is until the word return (šwb) is explored. It is used 12 times in the first chapter, turning it into one of the main key words and pointing to Bethlehem as God’s choice for the confused Naomi and her daughters-in-law. Returning to Bethlehem was important, but more so, it implied returning to Yahweh, the provider of bread in Bethlehem.

Thirdly, Shaddai, meaning the ‘One that is sufficient’ (Braymer 1987:126–131; Bush 1996:33, 63, 92; Wenham 1994:20), is accused of being against her and leaving her empty. Clearly this is diametrically opposed to any theology focus on Shaddai. It simply does not make sense. Queen-Sutherland (2016:44) reminds the reader of the historical context of the book of Ruth as it was ‘in the days when judges ruled’. A period of relative lawlessness and no safe place for women who were demanded to be productive and fertile (cf. Jdg 19:1). Wardlow (2015:37, 38) concludes that the name El Shaddai is always associated with God’s protection and covenant blessings of sufficiency. In effect, Naomi is accusing Yahweh of not keeping his covenant promises.

This point is also emphasised by the repeated use of the ‘fields of Moab’ (śedey môʾāb) as opposed to Shaddai of Bethlehem. In Hebrew the slightly unusual spelling used here, appears to be the same (šadday שׁדּי) and ‘fields of’ (śedey שּׂדי). In the rest of the historical books, whenever Moab is mentioned, it is referred to as ‘in the land’ (b^e’ereṣ) of Moab, or ‘in the plains’ (b^e’arbôt) of Moab, or the ‘desert’ (midbār) of Moab. In Ruth 1, a subtle contrast using these two similar words (šadday and śedey) develops a nuance to show Naomi’s existing trauma clouding her perception of God.

The structure of Ruth 1 clearly reveals Naomi’s most serious problem: her distorted interpretation of Yahweh’s dealings with her (Figure 3).

To sum up – Yahweh’s involvement in Naomi’s suffering is referred to in the beginning, middle and end of the chiastic rhetorical structure. It is the darkest time in Naomi’s life and in her extreme bitterness, she seems unable to see any positive sign of the All Sufficient (El Shaddai) and the Active, Present and Faithful (Yahweh), Lord of the Covenant. She consequently concludes subjectively against God. The story may well have ended right there if it had not been for Ruth’s living faith commitment to Naomi and to her God. Naomi could have returned to Bethlehem alone, and without the greatest blessing from Yahweh – a ‘daughter’ like Ruth.

In Ruth 1 the traumatic depths of bitterness and Naomi’s struggle with Shaddai is exposed. The sweet and pleasant ‘Naomi’ feels under attack from God.

The structure of Ruth 2 seems to be the same as Ruth 1’s – it contains three dialogues in the middle, but this time the conversation is between Ruth and Boaz (see Figure 2).

At the outset after her return to Bethlehem, Naomi seems to be subdued. She is not overly enthusiastic when Ruth asked if she might go to see what grace she could find, referring mainly to food. Only at the end of the chapter, Naomi shows some reaction when she recognises and blesses the man that maintained and did not lose his ḥesed – his faithful covenant love. In sharp contrast with Naomi, passive and unable to summon energy in the sapping struggle of her state of bitterness, are the actions and faith conversations of Boaz and Ruth.

The believing Ruth, who confessed the God of Israel and of Naomi, takes the initiative to go and ‘find grace in someone’s eyes’ (Rt 2:2). This phrase is repeated twice in the dialogues between Boaz and Ruth (2:10, 13). It is linked with the verb nēkār, meaning ‘to notice’, which enforces the expression ‘find grace in someone’s eyes’. To see and to take notice are the first steps of showing grace in this narrative. This is further emphasised in the interesting wordplay. A foreigner is called nŏkrî. To ‘notice me, and I am a foreigner’ is expressed as: hakirenîy ‘anokîy nŏkrîyāh (Rt 2:10–New English Translation Bible [NET] notes). The point is that it also emphasises an active way of deliberate looking.

Boaz’s answer to Ruth’s appreciation, turns the focus away from himself to Yahweh, God of Israel. This is reminiscent of the middle dialogue of Ruth 1, where Naomi said: ‘Yahweh’s hand turned against me’. Contrasting that statement in the middle dialogue of Ruth 2, Boaz says: ‘May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge’ (v. 12 NIB).

The reader is beginning to get some indication that Yahweh is in the process of healing Naomi’s bitterness and emptiness. This comes about through God allowing her to recall his ways with his people, and the example of Boaz and Ruth seems to fit into those ways. Naomi is gradually learning to trust the Covenant God and his ways once again, and to do so by faith. She takes refuge under God’s wings (a metaphor for his covenantal protection). As with Ruth, she will be rewarded (literally ‘filled up’ [šālēm]) (Rt 2:12), her bitterness dissipated.

Both Ruth and Boaz are important to Naomi. Their sense of responsibility made them useful instruments in the hands of the Lord (Luter & Rigsby 1993:57). In the case of Boaz, he is prepared to do more than the minimum requirements of the law (Lv 19:9, 10; 23:22; Dt 24:19–22). Apart from being willing to raise a descendant for Elimelech by marrying Ruth, he also adheres to the Torah in looking after the poor and widows (Block 2017:117). Boaz does this by letting them glean in his fields. He does the same and more than what was required for strangers, remembering Israel’s time as strangers and slaves in Egypt (Dt 10:17–19).

The air is loaded with suspense when Ruth arrives home at the end of her first day. When Naomi ‘saw’ what she brought home, it became evident that Ruth had found someone who noticed her with grace in his heart. Naomi takes some of the roasted grain Ruth saved from lunch, as she must have been very hungry (Rt 2:18). Only then does the author reveal their conversation recording a wordplay on the one ephah. Naomi asks ‘êpâh? [where?] (Rt 2:19). Then she blesses the man who took notice (nēkār) of Ruth. After hearing his name, Naomi blesses him again and sings the praises of Boaz who did not leave his ḥesed behind, referring to the man’s kindness shown so abundantly to Ruth (2:20).

Ruth 3 begins with Naomi getting into action mode taking control. ‘My daughter, will I not find rest for you, that it may be well with you?’ (v. 1)

With 10 imperatives, Ruth is given detailed orders. The verb ṣiwwattāh [to order] emerges from the noun miṣwāh, [commandment] and confirms the seriousness of Naomi´s plans (Rt 3:6). It entailed every possibility of compromising Ruth and embarrassing Boaz. These instructions serve to steer Ruth to the point where she commits herself to a position of lying down beside Boaz – one of the family kinsman-redeemers. It was an all-or-nothing strategy on which Naomi, alias Mara, stakes everything. The plan unfolds step by step. All is done quietly and in secret, nuanced by the word ḇallāṭ, associating the subtle playing out of the drama. This places Ruth in a very vulnerable situation. Contrary to the opinion that Naomi’s only concern was to find an heir for her deceased son, the text emphasises that Naomi wants to provide ‘rest’ for Ruth, meaning her general well-being.

Her detailed plan is orderly arranged in an inverted structure (Figure 4), emphasising ‘go down, lying down’ and ‘go, uncover his feet’. With plans in place, Ruth executes them. But for the first time, Ruth does not follow Naomi’s advice to the letter, namely that Boaz should now take charge. Instead, she tells Boaz what to do, reminiscent of Boaz’s prayer for her protection upon their first meeting in his fields (Rt 2:12) calling upon ‘the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge’. Following up on that prayer, Ruth asks from Boaz what he asked God for on her behalf, ‘Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer⁵ of our family’ (Rt 3:9 NIB); a powerful metaphor for protection. This is one that can be used to make sense of the subtle tensions and nuances between Boaz and Ruth’s present and previous encounters (Rt 2:12b). Ezekiel 16:8–12 depicts a situation with some similarity in which Yahweh covers the naked Jerusalem with the corner of his garment and marries her (Bush 1996:151; Queen-Sutherland 2016:122). In other words, it may be reasonably argued that Ruth effectively asked Boaz to marry her!

Hamilton (2011:361) explains the background of Deuteronomy 32:11 where the eagle’s wings describe the extraordinary love of God towards his people. Cansdale (2008:69) further qualifies the meaning by explaining that both eagle and vulture were considered to be symbols of power in Egypt, explaining the use of the metaphor in Exodus 19:4: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself’. (NIB) The last words, however, bring in the dimension of marriage and covenantal unity. ‘… brought you to myself’ is a technical term for marriage (NET).

In Ruth 2:10, the emphasis and meaning of taking refuge under the wings of Yahweh leans towards God’s, and by implication his servant Boaz’s capacity of giving protection to Ruth and Naomi. The same idea is found in Psalm 91:4 where God spreads his protective wings over the just, as well as in the words of Jesus (Mt 23.37; Lk 13.34; Domeris 2011:254, 256).

As in Ruth 1 and 2, we find three dialogues in the middle section of Ruth 3. The middle dialogue is also emphasised, because it starts and ends with references to Yahweh (Rt 3:10, 11), with Boaz blessing Ruth for her greater faithful love (ḥesed), and being a ‘worthy woman’ (‘ešet ḥayil). Ruth and Naomi entered into a man’s world on the threshing floor, but now both she and Naomi are covered by the commitment of Boaz, who called on Yahweh to be his witness, if the other redeemer will not, ‘I will do it’ (Rt 3:13).

The chapter ends with Naomi telling Ruth to exercise restraint. She is not to go, nor to lie down, but to sit and wait. Naomi submits control of the situation to covenantal promises. Boaz will solve whatever there is left to resolve.

In Ruth 4 the activity is centred on Boaz (vv. 4:1–2 and 13–16). He does the organising and meeting with the more immediate kinsman-redeemer. Boaz does the talking, steering the conversation strategically. All this is recorded in the now familiar pattern of three dialogues in the middle section of the chapter. This time, however, the dialogues are not arranged symmetrically, but in parallel fashion, making the third one the climax of the conversations. The third dialogue itself shows an inverted order, starting with the ‘elders and the people’ and ending with the ‘people and the elders’ (Figure 5).

From the above it is evident that twice the elders and the people are called ‘to be witnesses’ (’ûd), or legally attest the proceedings. There is a case to be made here for an intentional double meaning, ‘bear witness or return’, in which case the author would want us to link this witness with šwb [return], an important factor referring back to the recorded narrative in Ruth 1. A witness ‘repeats’ or ‘returns to say’ (Harris, Archer & Waltke 1980:1082–1083). The repetition of ‘today you are witnesses’ calls to mind the last words Naomi spoke: ‘For the man will not rest until the matter is settled today’ (Rt 3:18 NIB; Hubbard 2008:343). Naomi does not speak in Ruth 4, but the import of her previous words supports the development of the public proceedings.

The next section mirrors Boaz’s action (Rt 4:1, 2), in the most public manner possible, convening the meeting at the gate. Boaz does not offer his customary blessing of Yahweh to the nearer go’êl whom he does not even call by name, but as p^eloni ‘almoni, meaning ‘So-and-so’. Naomi, a widow, is tied to the land on sale. Her husband, Elimelech, and his heir, Mahlon, were deceased, but his widow, Ruth, was alone. Ruth was still of childbearing age and her son would legally inherit the land from the kinsman-redeemer. Clearly Naomi was no threat to the nearer kinsman-redeemer, but Ruth was. Whatever decision is made about the field in question, the socio-cultural norms of the time dictated that Ruth was included and a levirate marriage was expected. It was both a social responsibility and divine providence (Ames 2011:457). When matters were concluded, Boaz as the nearer redeemer, accepts the declined right to redeem Ruth. The wedding is filled with acclamations and blessings of the women of Bethlehem and the story concludes for Naomi who now has a son named Obed (4:13–16).

Yahweh intervenes twice, according to the narrative. Once by giving bread in Bethlehem (Rt 1:6), an action that prompted Naomi’s return, and a second time through direct intervention causing Ruth to conceive.⁶ Finally filled, as ‘Naomi took the child, and laid him in her lap and cared for him’ (4:13).

Naomi, this time round does not respond the way she did in Ruth 1:19–21. There she gave Yahweh all the blame, emphasised by the inverted order of Shaddai … Yahweh … Yahweh … Shaddai (Figure 6).

However, in this final chapter of the book, there is a pregnant silence. There is no outburst from Naomi in answer to the town’s women’s joy and praise. Her reply is her silence.

One reason can be that she had to reconsider her previous utterances about Yahweh. After all, it was by his intervention that the baby was born. What can she say? Reasonably put, she has learned to trust God again.

A second reason for her silence can be that she also had to reconsider her continued persuasions trying to force Ruth to return to Moab, a place where she might find rest and Yahweh’s blessing (Rt 1:8, 9). Now she doesn’t oppose the women praising Ruth as the one who loves her - love as expressed by partakers in covenant with God. However, she may have considered the biggest gift a woman can hope for: a daughter-in-law ‘more valuable than seven sons’ (Rt 4.15; Block 1999:729–730). Naomi could now discern God’s hand in her Moabite believing daughter-in-law.

Naomi, alias Mara, found grace in the provision of her kinsman and daughter-in-law. Hubbard (2008:361) understands the list of benefits the new go’êl will bring to her life, not as wishes, but as promises. There might be another wordplay⁷ calling attention to šwb [turn back], the main keyword of Ruth 1, used 12 times. In Ruth 4:15, we have mêsib, sibatekāh and missebāh. Mêsib (Hifil participle of šwb) nepeš, meaning ‘he made my life return’ (Rt 4:15), may then be seen as the follow-up of hfšibani (Hifil perfect of šwb) rêqām, meaning ‘He brought me back empty’ in Ruth 1:21. Incidentally, these are the only times šwb appears in the Hifil form in the book of Ruth. The meaning would then be found in the semantic range of ‘he gave me back my vitality’ – ‘he comforts me, fills my emptiness up’ – ‘he makes it possible that the lineage continues’. That is the grace of God, allowing a hard-hit covenant family to become whole again as they turn back to Bethlehem and El Shaddai.

In Ruth 1:11 Naomi says: ‘return and go back my daughters’ (šobnâh benotay) which also creates a contrast through sound and meaning with 4:15: ‘she is better than seven sons’ (mišivāh banim) and ‘he will turn around and renew your life’ (l^emešiv nepeš). The rhetorical structure (see Figure 7) links ‘the Lord enabled her to conceive’ (13b), with ‘who is better to you than seven sons’ (15d).

We can safely say that the multiple literary techniques used by the author of Ruth, help us focus on God’s intervention attending to the bitter trauma of Naomi. God uses Boaz, he uses Ruth and he uses a baby born in Bethlehem to bring the reader full circle back to the new life and rest only he can provide.

As Block (1999:612) remarks, apart from God’s providential control, the author has the goal of showing how true covenant faith and ḥesed look, always showing concern for the welfare of others.

A third reason to consider is that of her emptiness in losing her two ‘babies’. This unusual term for the loss of her two married sons, namely ‘her little children’ (yelādeyhā)⁸ is used in 1:5. This description is repeated in Ruth 4:16 when ‘Naomi took the child (yeled) to her bosom’. This was exactly what she needed. Little Obed served Yahweh’s purpose in restoring Naomi, his answer would ‘renew her life’ (Rt 4:14, 15). Naomi was truly filled.

A fourth implicit reason for Naomi’s silence, we suspect is the increasing mention of the people of Yahweh who long and pray for the up building of the house of Israel (Rt 4:11). The elders at the gate associated Ruth with Rachel and Leah who built up the house of Israel into a nation. Queen-Sutherland (2016:158ff.) develops this association to suggest that God’s history is unfolding with this event. Shaddai is sufficiently for history let alone for a stranger in a foreign land. The implication is that from this perspective, the requests and laments of an individual or nation at any given point in time are subservient to God’s providential unfolding of history. More specifically, it is from within the historical context of ungodly chaos recorded in the book of Judges (21:25), that it becomes evident that God is steadily working out his plan to establish the eternal house of his servant David (2 Sm 7:15–19).

Naomi had every reason to be quiet and fulfil her role looking after her grandson, Obed. The baby would be a further instrument in the unfolding plan of God’s purpose.

The book of Ruth does not end abruptly. It more than hints at the future. In the last chapter, ‘people’ appears three times, and ‘Israel’ five times. There is the prayer for the building up of the nation and that Ruth will be as Rachel and Leah, Jacob’s wives and founding mothers of the 12 tribes of Israel! Tamar is mentioned as the Canaanite stranger that was refused a kinsman-redeemer by Judah, her father-in-law (Gn 38). However, providentially she eventually bore Judah’s children, the twins, Perez and Zerah. The Perez-clan became the dominant clan to which the majority of witnessing crowd in Bethlehem belonged. Tamar was therefore fully accepted as a founding mother, likewise Ruth the Moabitess was also accepted much later (Hubbard 2008:347–348).