Kinship over Covenant: Ruth’s Traditional Challenge to Deuteronomy

A National Covenant

Much of the Bible is concerned with the question: What do we need to do to guarantee personal and communal security and well-being? Deuteronomy’s answer is that Israel must obey YHWH and keep YHWH’s covenant:

‏^{דברים כח:א} וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנְךָ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כָּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ. ^כח:ב וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

^{Deut 28:1} Now, if you obey your God YHWH, to observe faithfully all the divine commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, your God YHWH will set you high above all the nations of the earth. ^28:2 All these blessings shall come upon you and take effect, if you will but heed the word of your God YHWH.^[1]

The promised blessings for obedience include fertility and health, agricultural abundance, political power and military security and more (vv. 3–14). Conversely, if Israel disobeys the covenant, they will suffer curses that mirror and exceed the blessings—sickness and death, environmental disaster, and military catastrophe (vv. 15–68).

Individual obedience or disobedience to the covenant potentially has implications for the community as a whole because the community is judged based on the behavior of all of its individuals in aggregate. Similarly, an individual’s good or bad fortune is determined by the community’s covenantal compliance.

This covenantal theology, in which communal obedience to the covenant is the key to communal well-being, became central to Judaism—enshrined in the Shema^[2]—but it was not unique in taking up the question of how to ensure Israel’s security and well-being. The book of Ruth offers a very different answer—one that reflects more traditional Judahite practices and beliefs.

The Traditional Clan Structure

While it is notoriously difficult to date the composition of biblical texts, many scholars propose that Ruth was composed in the early Persian period.^[3] This is also a likely context for the crystallization and promulgation of the Deuteronomic covenantal theology by religious and political leaders who were leading the establishment of a new Judahite society in Persian Yehud.^[4]

In this context, Ruth offers a conservative challenge to Deuteronomy’s new and radical theology that argued for the centrality of nationality, statutory law, and an understanding of the deity as a transcendent covenantal partner. The authors of Ruth insist that the traditional centrality of clan structures, an understanding that YHWH’s actions and attributes are embedded in the everyday lives of the people, and a reliance on customary law are the answer to the question: What will ensure our security and well-being as we rebuild Judahite society in Persian Yehud?^[5] While it is difficult to know how authoritative the new covenantal theology would have been for Ruth’s earliest audiences, it is likely that this theology informed Ruth’s advocacy for the more traditional perspective.

The Importance of Clan Identity

In Deuteronomy’s model, YHWH’s covenantal partner is the Israelite nation as a whole. Thus, an individual’s security and well-being flows from his or her identity as an Israelite. By contrast, the portrayal of Ruth’s hybrid identity—as a Moabite who married into a Judahite clan—suggests that an individual’s status as the member of a household or clan is far more determinative than their ethnic status.

The dynamics of this dual identity are clear from the opening scene, as the narrator first identifies Ruth and her sister-in law Orpah as Moabite women, centering their ethnic origins:

‏^{רות א:ג} וַיָּמָת אֱלִימֶלֶךְ אִישׁ נָעֳמִי וַתִּשָּׁאֵר הִיא וּשְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ. ^א:ד וַיִּשְׂאוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מֹאֲבִיּוֹת שֵׁם הָאַחַת עָרְפָּה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית רוּת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם כְּעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים.

^{Ruth 1:3} Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left with her two sons. ^1:4 They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth, and they lived there about ten years.

The rest of the chapter, however, focuses on their status as members of a Judahite family: Ruth and Orpah are Naomi’s כַלֹּת, “daughters-in-law” (vv. 6–8, 22), and Naomi refers to them repeatedly as בְּנֹתַי, “my daughters” (vv. 11–13).^[6]

The ensuing chapters do mention Ruth’s Moabite identity. Both the narrator and Boaz refer to her as רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה, “Ruth the Moabite” (1:22; 2:2, 21; 4:5, 10). In addition, when Boaz inquires about the girl gleaning in his field, the servant who responds mentions Ruth’s ethnicity before her family ties:

^{רות ב:ו} וַיַּעַן הַנַּעַר הַנִּצָּב עַל הַקּוֹצְרִים וַיֹּאמַר נַעֲרָה מוֹאֲבִיָּה הִיא הַשָּׁבָה עִם נָעֳמִי מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב.

^{Ruth 2:6} The servant in charge of the reapers replied, “She is a Moabite girl who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab.

Yet Ruth’s identity as a member of Naomi’s household and Boaz’s extended clan receives greater emphasis. When Ruth asks Boaz why he is treating her so well, Boaz replies that he is motivated by her behavior toward her Judahite kin:

^{רות ב:יא} וַיַּעַן בֹּעַז וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הֻגֵּד הֻגַּד לִי כֹּל אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂית אֶת חֲמוֹתֵךְ אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אִישֵׁךְ וַתַּעַזְבִי אָּבִיךְ וְאִמֵּךְ וְאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתֵּךְ וַתֵּלְכִי אֶל עַם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעַתְּ תְּמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם.

^{Ruth 2:11} Boaz said in reply, “I have been told of all that you did for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband, how you left your father and mother and the land of your birth and came to a people you had not known before.”

Naomi also continues to refer to Ruth as “my daughter” (2:2, 3:1, 3:16, 3:18), and the narrator repeatedly describes Naomi and Ruth as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law of one another (e.g. 3:20–3:23).

Most crucially, though Ruth is ethnically a Moabite, her Moabite ethnicity neither helps nor hinders the resolution of her problem. Rather, it is because Ruth retains her status as a family member in the Judahite family into which she married that she is entitled to a “redeeming kinsman.” Naomi confirms Ruth’s status when Ruth tells her about gleaning in Boaz’s field:

^{רות ב:כ} וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי לְכַלָּתָהּ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַי־הוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָזַב חַסְדּוֹ אֶת הַחַיִּים וְאֶת הַמֵּתִים וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ נָעֳמִי קָרוֹב לָנוּ הָאִישׁ מִגֹּאֲלֵנוּ הוּא.

^{Ruth 2:20} Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he of YHWH, who has not failed in His kindness to the living or to the dead! For,” Naomi explained to her daughter-in-law, “the man is related to us; he is one of our redeeming kinsmen.”

Ruth and Boaz also identify Boaz as a redeeming kinsman of both Ruth and Naomi (3:2, 3:9, 3:12–13).

This privileging of kinship over ethnicity probably reflects traditional and long-standing local practice,^[7] as suggested by other biblical texts that portray marriages between men from Ephrath and Moabite or other non-Judahite women as unexceptional (e.g., Judg 12:8–9; 2 Sam 3:3; 1 Chr 2:17, 4:22).^[8]

Covenantal Theology vs. Personal Piety

The covenantal theology posits that YHWH is a transcendent national god who enforces the covenant with the nation as a whole. Again here, Ruth presents a different perspective, with a far more personal and immanent deity.^[9]

The characters see YHWH at work everywhere in their daily lives. Naomi attributes her personal misfortune to God:

^{רות א:יג} ...כִּי מַר לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם כִּי יָצְאָה בִי יַד יְ־הוָה.

^{Ruth 1:13} ...“My lot is far more bitter than yours, for the hand of YHWH has struck out against me.”^[10]

The intimacy of this image, in which YHWH’s own hand strikes Naomi, bears witness to the personal, immanent nature of this theology. Boaz and Naomi also wish divine favor on others. For example, after praising Ruth’s kindness to Naomi, Boaz says:

^{רות ב:יב} יְשַׁלֵּם יְ־הוָה פָּעֳלֵךְ וּתְהִי מַשְׂכֻּרְתֵּךְ שְׁלֵמָה מֵעִם יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר בָּאת לַחֲסוֹת תַּחַת כְּנָפָיו.

^{Ruth 2:12} May YHWH reward your deeds. May you have a full recompense from YHWH, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have sought refuge!”^[11]

Yet despite the ascription of a lot of the action to YHWH, the deity only performs one action in the book:

^{רות ד:יג} וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת רוּת וַתְּהִי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ וַיִּתֵּן יְ־הוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן.

^{Ruth 4:13} So Boaz married Ruth; she became his wife, and he cohabited with her. YHWH made her pregnant, and she bore a son.

While the characters look to God for blessing, protection and reward for kindness, it is Boaz, enacting his traditional role as kinsperson who is identified repeatedly as the go’el, the redeemer.

Customary Law vs. Statutory Law

In Deuteronomy, YHWH will bless Israel with stability and well-being if they are obedient to the laws and statutes of the covenant. At first glance, Ruth seems to offer a similar model, as several of the narratives’ themes—the problems of the landless poor, childless widows, and alienated property—are addressed in the Torah. There are, however, significant discrepancies between the legal material in the Torah and the actions in Ruth.

Gleaning – Leviticus and Deuteronomy mandate the right of gleaners to glean (Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 24:19–22). In Ruth, however, Boaz must explicitly direct his staff to allow Ruth to glean unmolested:

^{רות ב:ח} ...הֲלוֹא צִוִּיתִי אֶת הַנְּעָרִים לְבִלְתִּי נָגְעֵךְ וְצָמִת וְהָלַכְתְּ אֶל הַכֵּלִים וְשָׁתִית מֵאֲשֶׁר יִשְׁאֲבוּן הַנְּעָרִים.

^{Ruth 2:9} ...I have ordered the men not to molest you. And when you are thirsty, go to the jars and drink some of [the water] that the men have drawn.”

While it is possible that Boaz is enforcing an accepted law or norm, the narrative suggests that without the mandate of the landowner, there is no guarantee of safety for the gleaners.

Levirate marriage – In Deuteronomy, the obligation to marry the childless widow of a kinsman applies only to a brother of the deceased (25:5–10). In Ruth, more distant relatives—an unnamed kinsman and Boaz—are both potentially obligated to marry Ruth, as Boaz makes clear after Ruth appeals to him as a redeeming kinsman:

^{רות ג:יב} וְעַתָּה כִּי אָמְנָם כִּי אִם גֹאֵל אָנֹכִי וְגַם יֵשׁ גֹּאֵל קָרוֹב מִמֶּנִּי.

^{Ruth 3:12} “But while it is true I am a redeeming kinsman, there is another redeemer closer than I.”

Redemption of property – Leviticus includes a law regarding the redemption of property up for sale (25:25–28), but no such provision is included in Deuteronomy’s levirate marriage law. In Ruth, however, the two are intertwined. Boaz states that if the redeeming kinsman wants to purchase Naomi’s land, he also needs to marry Ruth:

^{רות ד:ה} וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז בְּיוֹם קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת קָנִיתִי [קָנִיתָה] לְהָקִים שֵׁם הַמֵּת עַל נַחֲלָתוֹ.

^{Ruth 4:5} Boaz continued, “When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate.”

Exogamy – The very marriage of Boaz to Ruth, a Moabite seems to contradict Deuteronomy’s restrictions regarding who may be included among YHWH’s congregation:

^{דברים כג:ד} לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל יְ־הוָה גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לֹא יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל יְ־הוָה עַד עוֹלָם.

^{Deut 23:4} No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of YHWH; no descendants of such, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of YHWH.^[12]

These divergences between the legal texts in Torah and the actions of the characters in Ruth have agitated commentators since the rabbinic period,^[13] but they probably would not have troubled Ruth’s earliest audiences. While scholars continue to debate the precise nature and function of the law codes in the Torah, there is broad consensus that they were likely not used to adjudicate and resolve specific cases.^[14]

Rather, specific cases were addressed through practices of “customary law.” As Chaya Halberstam (King’s University College, University of Western Ontario) writes:

It is probable, then, that ancient Israelite societies had some measure of a “legal enterprise”: that elders, heads of households, priests, officials, and monarchs were tasked to ensure harmony among families and communities by resolving disputes and intervening when traditional rules were violated. Though they were not expected to adhere strictly to a code of law, there was, most likely, a body of tradition that provided the bases for social justice – and just decision making – that persisted throughout the generations within ancient Israel.^[15]

It is this ad hoc practice of customary law, rather than reference to a particular law, that provides the means by which problems are solved in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth’s restoration is made possible because they are members of their deceased husbands’ extended clan, which entitles them to the protection of a kinsman redeemer. Boaz ensures that this redeemer role will be fulfilled in a public negotiation before the town’s elders, where he tells the unnamed kinsman about Naomi’s situation and then says:

^{רות ד:ד} וַאֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי אֶגְלֶה אָזְנְךָ לֵאמֹר קְנֵה נֶגֶד הַיֹּשְׁבִים וְנֶגֶד זִקְנֵי עַמִּי אִם תִּגְאַל גְּאָל וְאִם לֹא יִגְאַל הַגִּידָה לִּי וְאֵדַע [וְאֵדְעָה] כִּי אֵין זוּלָתְךָ לִגְאוֹל וְאָנֹכִי אַחֲרֶיךָ וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֶגְאָל.

^{Ruth 4:4} “I thought I should disclose the matter to you and say: Acquire it in the presence of those seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you are willing to redeem it, redeem! But if you will not redeem, tell me, that I may know. For there is no one to redeem but you, and I come after you.”

By depicting how the practice of customary law solves the book’s central problems, Ruth makes the case that this practice is an effective mechanism for solving communal problems and supporting social harmony and stability. The characters look to YHWH for protection and safety, but it is human action that ultimately ensures their well-being.