Ruth’s Two Cents
by Shola Adegbite
In recent times all over the world, concerns around migration are rising in unprecedented ways. Fear and distrust give rise to hate speech, discrimination, violence, and unhealthy policies. Nevertheless, Ruth’s story of migration is a peculiar one that embodies the true deep meaning of migration for the immigrant and host country. As we deal with current challenges regarding migration, perhaps we can find two cents of wisdom in her story.
Without doubt, migration, in a geographical sense, is a central theme of the Bible both in the bigger story of the Israelites as a people and also in the smaller stories of individuals such as Abraham, Hagar, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, and the apostles. Here is Ruth’s story in the book named after her.
When famine struck in Bethlehem, Elimelech, Naomi, and their two sons decided to relocate to Moab. Soon after, Elimelech died and the sons took wives, Ruth and Orpah. The sons died, too, leaving Naomi hopeless, without a male protector and with no hope of grandchildren.
Then Naomi heard that famine had ceased in Bethlehem, so she decided to return home. Her dejection was so great that she renamed herself from Naomi, meaning happiness, to Mara, meaning bitterness. Initially, both Orpah and Ruth, the daughters-in-law, wanted to return with Naomi to Bethlehem, but Naomi discouraged them because she had no more sons to give them as husbands. In such ancient societies, women without husbands, brothers or sons were disadvantaged.
Ruth, however, insisted on following Naomi, declaring the famous covenantal words, “Do not entreat me to leave you, or return from following you, for where you go I will go, where you stay I will stay, your people will be my people and your God my God, where you die I will die and there will I be buried, may the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts you and me” (Ruth 1:16-17). In her declaration, we see that migration is not just a geographic movement. It also involves a shift in ideologies, a theological shift. Ruth was not even trying to get away from the loss of a spouse. She was migrating to adopt a new identity, a new family, a worldview, and a new god.
This theological dimension of Ruth’s migration is evident in the text. Naomi’s argument to deter the daughters-in-law from following her was based on her inability to provide husbands for them. We might call this a socio-economic basis for the daughters-in-law to return home. But when Orpah turns back, her return is interpreted as a return to her people and her Moabite gods (compare Ruth 1:12-13 and 1:15). On the other hand, Ruth’s declaration showed that her decision to migrate was well thought through. She was ready to make all the necessary changes to live with Naomi in Israel.
Ruth’s declaration was not just empty words. Her commitment is illustrated in subsequent scenes. Now at Bethlehem, she takes the initiative to glean in order to provide sustenance for herself and Naomi. Fortunately for her, she comes to the field of Boaz, Naomi’s kin. Although Boaz heard her story from his workers and allowed her to glean, he still approached her boldly, not out of fear. He spoke with her personally, confirmed her story, and blessed her, saying that the God of Israel under whose wings she came for refuge would reward her. Then he further made provisions for her well-being. Note that, at this point, Boaz did not even know he would redeem her. In other words, he was kind to her without any expectations in return.
Ruth’s assimilation to the Israelite community did not ignore Ruth’s origins. After she arrived at Bethlehem (1:22), the text severally referred to her as the Moabitess. Migration does not necessarily entail abandoning one’s former identity, nor does it mean that one’s former identity is inherently evil and must be blotted out. This appellation was never used derogatorily but rather reminds the reader of Ruth’s origins. This makes the story even more remarkable that an outsider on the margins of society could adapt to a new lifestyle and even model much better the demands of the covenantal relationship she formed with Naomi, something that Israel throughout their history with God struggled to understand.
Ruth’s achievements are by no means insignificant. Moab’s prior relationship to Israel was hardly positive. The injunction in Deuteronomy 23:3 that “A Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord even until the 10th generation” reflects the resentment Israel should have for Moab’s wickedness to Israel while Israel was wandering in the wilderness. For some, this even provides a theological basis for ethnocentrism—or that a group has a superior, divinely approved culture. In exaggerated forms, this justifies the extermination of people with “inferior” cultures. Nevertheless, Ruth’s story is a retake on that subject. Ruth’s story presents an individual who does not perpetuate the past evil attitudes of her country (not that Israel herself was innocent). Ruth’s story recognizes this, respects Ruth for this, and creates a space for her in Israel.
The wider community in the story accepted Ruth as the remarkable woman she was. We see this when Boaz redeemed her; the elders, knowing she was a Moabite, still prayed for her to be fruitful as Rachel and Leah (4:11). Also, when she had a son, the women blessed Naomi for having a daughter-in-law who loved her and appraised Ruth to be worth more than seven sons.
In conclusion, Ruth’s two cents, or maybe more, of wisdom are that migration is a transformative experience for both the migrant and the host. It comprises not just a geographical relocation but also an ideological shift to adopt new practices and values. Even a person from the detested country of Moab is capable of such transformation. This so-called “outsider” can even be a better “citizen.” But migration does not obliterate the value of one’s origins. Israel’s history clearly shows that one country was not quintessentially better than the others, but there is so much we can gain from dealing with each other from a place of courage, strength and love.
