Ruth 1:19-20
Ruth 1:19 So both the two of them went until they came to the House of Bread (Bethlehem).
And it happened that as soon as they arrived in the House of Bread (Bethlehem), that all the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, “Is this My Pleasant One (Naomi)?”
20 But she said to them, “Do not call me My Pleasant One (Naomi); call me Bitter (Mara),
for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.
Introduction
Our text this morning continues our study of the book of Ruth.
Now remember two weeks ago our story came to a head and with it the central theme of returning, along with all its spiritual factors (remember watch the feet and you will see the heart). As such, Orpah (Back Turner), who has no ties to YHWH, accepts Naomi’s pragmatic reasoning that things will be better for all involved if the girls return to Moab. Therefore, she returns to pagan Moab never to be seen again.
However, Ruth (Companion) latches herself onto Naomi and refuses to go. In fact, Ruth trumps Naomi’s authority and the official release that Naomi gave her two daughters-in-law by making her own binding vow. Why? Ruth, who has been exposed to Naomi’s constant witness over the years, has come to adopt Naomi’s faith as her own. Therefore, (with everything on the line) Ruth irrevocably binds herself to YHWH, His people, and to Naomi, the mother of her faith.
However, surprisingly Naomi does not rejoice in Ruth’s conversion nor is she glad to have the girl going with her. Instead, because Naomi still thinks God’s hand is against her, she still thinks that going with her will only mean hardship for Ruth. Therefore, our passage ended with the two women starting back down the road to Bethlehem in utter silence.
In our text this morning, the two women arrive at last in Bethlehem. And O what a commotion it causes.
Verse 19
Notice at once our passage picks back up with the two women on the road heading to Bethlehem. However, notice the clunky Hebrew: the author intentionally uses an unusual plural form here that is best rendered by the equally clunky English “both the two of them” FN#1. Why? The author is intentionally using this clunky unusual form to draw our attention to the emphasis that both the women are not only making the same trip, they are going together. In other words, Ruth’s appeal (vow) to YHWH back in verses 16-17 has worked. Thus, a trip that Naomi intended to be for just one has turned into a trip for two. However, it is not just that they are heading in the same direction. Instead, the author underscores that they are undertaking this trip together. Ruth has bound herself to Naomi and Naomi’s God. Therefore, both the women go together, and both are going to the same place for the same ultimate reason (YHWH). Remember, with returning watch the feet and you will see the heart.
Next, notice verse 19 tells us that the two women traveled until they reached Bethlehem (the House of Bread). Importance: notice at once the irony and foreshadowing: Elimelech took Naomi and his family to the fields of pagan Moab to find provisions (instead of trusting God). Now, years later, his wife is returning from that pagan land empty and destitute (unfaithfulness never provides). However, in a book that is all about names, it is central that the women, though empty and destitute, are returning to the House of Bread. In fact, notice the repetition of House of Bread in this one short verse. Notice the repetition does not convey any additional information. Instead, the author wants the name of the town and its meaning to ring in your ears. That is, the author is intentionally drawing your attention to and underscoring the fact that the women are returning to a place that heralds YHWH’s provision and eventually YHWH’s king and Messiah FN#2. In other words, nobody knows it yet, but the author is clueing you in that things in the story are about to change profoundly FN#3.
Next, notice the dramatic depiction of their arrival: the author tells us that as soon as they arrived in the House of Bread that the whole city was stirred because of them. Notice then the scene: two strangers (solitary women at that) wander into town unannounced. However, this is not New York. Instead, it is a small town. Therefore, it does not take days or weeks for people to notice them. Instead, their arrival draws the immediate attention and interest of the town folks FN#4. In fact, the text tells us that the commotion started as soon as they arrived. Therefore, as people stopped to look, whisper, and speculate, it did not take long until someone recognized their long lost friend. Not only that, they also noticed that she is returning impoverished, without her husband or her two sons, and that she is accompanied by a foreign girl. The result is that the word, excitement, and wonder quickly spread that Naomi has returned, along with all the questions about what in the world has happened to her. In fact, you can hear the wonder and amazement in the women’s voices when they ask, “Is this Naomi”. However, please note: their question is not about confirming Naomi’s identity. Notice then, the women have already recognized Naomi and by this point, they are talking to her. Instead, their question articulates their marvel and disbelief. Thus, they ask “can this really be Naomi, come home after all these years (surprise/joy)” which then quickly turns to “can this really be what has become of Naomi” (astonishment/dismay). Notice then, in a book that is all about names, you can hear the emotion in their question when you use Naomi’s actual Hebrew name, “Is this really My Pleasant One” (because things don’t look all that pleasant with her)?
Verse 20
Notice at once, in a book that is all about names, Naomi responds to the town women’s emotionally charged question, by playing off her own name FN#5. She tells them, do not call me “My Pleasant One” instead call me Bitter. However, please note: there is much more to Naomi’s play on her name than may first meet the eye: notice then the word “bitter” that Naomi uses here is an Aramaic word. That is, Naomi uses a foreign word for bitter instead of the Hebrew word. Importance: Naomi is not only saying that she is not “Pleasant” to YHWH but that she bears the bitterness of a pagan before God (she says, do not call me Hebrew Pleasant. Call me pagan Bitter). Not only that, Naomi’s play on her own name is not simply a case of Naomi being snide or melodramatic. Instead, it represents her genuine longstanding assessment of her situation (this is something we have heard from Naomi before) FN#6. In other words, it is Naomi’s sincere opinion, that God is angry with her because she went to pagan Moab. Yes, it was not her decision to go but she thinks that maybe there was something more that God expected her to do. Simply put, in her eyes God has dealt with her as a pagan deserter. Thus, His hand has gone out against her taking her joy and her future and replacing them with pagan sorrow and bitterness FN#7.
Next, notice Naomi’s explanation for her proposed name change: Naomi says that the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. Importance: in a book that is all about names, Naomi conspicuously changes the way she refers to God. That is, our passage (vs 20-21) is the only time in the whole book that she does not call God by His covenant name (YHWH). Instead, she feels rejected by God. Therefore, rather than using the name which God exclusively gave His people to use, she uses Shaddai (the Almighty), a name which represents God’s general standing before all mankind (not just His people) FN#8. Simply put, Naomi says that God no longer responds to her as YHWH, the God of His people. Rather, He responds to her as Shaddai, the almighty judge of the nations. Not only that, in a book that is all about names, Naomi not only plays on her own name (Pleasant/ Bitter) she also plays on this name of God. How? The name Shaddai is closely related in root, meaning, and sound to the Hebrew verb “destroy” (shadad). In other words, to hear the name Shaddai is to hear echoes of the common root shadad (destroy). Thus, God is the almighty Lord of all the earth, who removes/destroys all who oppose Him FN#9. Naomi’s play then serves to bring these echoes to the forefront. Notice the result, in root, sound, and feeling what Naomi says is that God, the unopposable Judge of all who displease Him, has made her life exceedingly bitter. Simply put, the name for God that Naomi uses here reflects (plays on) the harshness that she feels she has received from His hand. In her eyes, God has dealt with her as a pagan not as His covenant child FN#10.
Bottom line: Naomi and Ruth have finally arrived in the House of Bread. However, despite the fact that Naomi (for the first time in years) is standing in God’s land, surrounded by God’s people, nonetheless, she is pitching a fit that God has turned on her. In other words, Naomi (like us) is so overwhelmed by her situation that she does not see the amazing deliverance that God already has underway. Oh and remember Ruth, the one that God is actually going to use to bring about this deliverance? Where is she in all of this? Well Ruth has been pushed aside and ignored by the crowd as they and Naomi focus on all the wrong things FN#11.
Footnotes
1] Note: when verse 19 tells us that “the two of them went” we would expect the text to use a feminine plural suffix since the text is referring to the two women (Naomi and Ruth). However, the text uses the masculine plural suffix instead. This is likely an application/recall of an archaic dual use of the masculine form (kind of like throwing an Old English word in a modern poem). Importance, the archaic plural masculine form not only draws our attention, it also serves as a generic collective of emphasis “they both”. The author intentionally uses this clunky/unusual Hebrew phrase in order to draw attention to the emphasis that both the women are not only going, they are both going together. To bring out this emphasis, I have translated the phrase (in a like clunky manner) to read, “So both the two of them went”.
2] Notice the author’s playfulness and delight in relaying this account to us. In other words, he joyfully recounts God’s wondrous hand at work not only in what the text says but how it says it. In turn, as readers we are to share that joy and delight as we engage the account (the author’s how sets the tone for our how). Case in point (and don’t worry about the Hebrew, read on and you will get the gist): we would have expected the infinitive בוא (they came/arrived) to take the normal second person accusative feminine plural pronominal suffix as its subject (ן). However, twice the author instead uses the second person feminine plural form (ָנָה ) that would normally be suffixed to a plural noun (not a verbal infinitive). The reason seems to be that he intends to create an alliteration with the previous lead verb וַתֵּלַכְנָה (they went). In other words, in verse 19 the author is really driving our attention to the meaning/significance of the name Bethlehem (House of Bread) both lexically (by the repetition of the name itself) and phonetically (by the repetition of the verbal sounds that mark the women’s movement to Bethlehem). The result is that the author is using both what the text says as well as how it sounds to draw your attention to the significance of the town’s name (House of Bread, YHWH provision).
3] Note: the author tipping you off that things are about to get much better adds to the drama and delight as we read. As bad as Naomi thinks it is, we know YHWH is about to come through in a big way. Not only that, this tip off also orients us to everything we are about to read. Naomi’s assessment of her situation is flat out wrong. God has not abandoned her. In turn, all of the hullabaloo and panic we are about to hear from Naomi is absolutely needless and unfounded (in her life and in ours as well).
4] Note: while the whole town is stirred, the text focuses on the women of the town. Why? Well Naomi and Ruth aren’t rich merchants who offer potential business opportunities, nor are they a dangerous band of outlaws that should be watched. Thus, the men seem to take no further thought of them (that or the men are off attending to the harvest and so are not in town when they arrive- which seems most likely). However, the women are curious. They want to know who these strangers are and what they are up to. Therefore, it does not take long until one of the women recognizes their long lost friend.
5] First, Naomi responds to the women’s emotionally charged question with a biting and equally emotionally charged response. In fact, the electricity of the text at this point comes off the page. Second, Naomi’s play on her own name indicates/verifies/presupposes that the primary reference of her name is YHWH. That is, first and foremost Naomi’s name means that she is God’s Pleasant One (My = God). Thus, over and again we see Naomi applying her name in the direct context of God and her perception of His treatment of her (c.f. 1:21). Otherwise, her constant play on its meaning would make little sense and convey none of the impact she intends it to carry. Simply put, it is because God is the primary reference of her name that Naomi tells the women to change her name because her bitterness has made it obvious that she is not pleasant to God.
6] Note: Naomi’s claim in verse 19 that she is bitter directly reflects her assessment of her condition in verse 13. In fact, Naomi uses the same base word for “bitter” in both verses. Notice then the consistency in Naomi’s assessment:
13 No, my daughters; for it is exceedingly more bitter (מָר) for me than for you, because the hand of YHWH has gone out against me.”
Simply put: Naomi’s play on her own name is not a case of Naomi being snide or melodramatic. Instead, she truly believes that her condition is the direct result of God’s anger.
7] Remember, Ruth is not just a book that is all about names. It is also a book that is all about the future. And to Naomi God has removed her, her husband, and her sons from the future and role of His people. Thus, we hear her utter despair and sorrow when she says “do not call me Hebrew Pleasant, instead call me pagan Bitter.
8] Throughout Scripture the name Shaddai is used to depict God as the sovereign King and Judge of the whole world. As such, He is the one who causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good; He grants life and takes life; He blesses and He also impoverishes. Simply put, Naomi says that God no longer responds to her as YHWH, the God of His people. Rather, He responds to her as Shaddai, the almighty judge of the nations.
9] Note: just as there is not a big phonetic leap between Shaddai (Almighty) and shadad (to destroy)- the two sound alike; there is not a big conceptual/theological leap between the two either. Thus, El Shadad- the God who destroys all who oppose Him is very close in meaning and connotation to El Shaddai- the unopposed Almighty ruler of all creation. Thus, to hear the name Shaddai is to hear echoes of the common root shadad. Naomi’s play brings these echoes to the forefront.
10] In the end, when we step back, we can get the full emotional impact of what Naomi’s play on God’s name conveys: Naomi forgoes using God’s covenant name and uses instead a name (Shaddai) that describes God as the Judge and King of all the earth/nations. Thus, He is the one who gives life to all mankind and also take it. In turn, He is the one who blesses man and also impoverishes him. Not only that, in the context of discussing her great misfortune, she uses this name (Shaddai), which sounds like and is rooted in the notion of God as the destroyer of all who displease Him. Simply put Naomi answers the women by telling them that God has rejected and judged her severely.
11] Let’s summarize: We have arrived with Naomi and Ruth in God’s land and in God’s House of Bread, all of which speak to God’s provision. In other words, the author has let us in on the secret that things are about to change. However, in the meantime, we are allowed share in Naomi’s arrival, the town’s confusion, and Naomi’s own despondent report. Why? In order that we may see how pointless such despair and panic actually are. Naomi’s assessment is untrue and her response is unproductive. The same often holds true for our assessments and responses. God did not abandon Naomi and He will not abandon us either. At the same time, we get a glimpse into the real messed up situations in which God finds His children and in which God’s hand works His plan. Thus, the God who worked in Naomi’s life is the same God who works in our dilemmas and confusion. In fact, it is through the mess in the book of Ruth that God brings about His Messiah to redeem the mess of all His people (you and me included).