John Mark Hicks

Widowed (Ruth 1:6-18)

Naomi Begins to Return to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:6-7)

Then she started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the LORD had considered his people and given them food. So she set out from the place where she had been living, she and her two daughters-in-law, and they went on their way to go back to the land of Judah.

When Naomi hears that Yahweh had “considered” or “visited” the people of Judah and ended the famine, she decided to return to Judah and resettle there. We don’t know how long it was after the deaths of her husband and sons that God “visited” Judah, but the moment must have been remarkable. Living in Moab, whose God was Chemosh, Naomi heard that Yahweh, the God of Israel, had renewed life in Judah by gifting them food. The famine was over because Yahweh acted in grace (gift) toward God’s own people. This news moved Naomi to return and, at least for the moment, her daughters-in-law accompanied her with every intent, apparently, to resettle with her in Judah.

The verb translated “considered” (or, visited) often refers to God’s encounter with Israel. This visitation can be either negative (like punishment or discipline as in Exodus 34:7; Isaiah 13:11) or positive (gracious as in Exodus 4:31; Psalm 65:9; 106:4). Whatever the case, it changes the situation. God “visits” in the sense that God acts. God does something. In Ruth 1:6, God graced Judah with the end to their famine. God gave them food or, literally, “bread” (lechem). Ultimately, Naomi returns to Bethlehem (meaning “house of bread”) from Moab because God has once again graced Judah, including Bethlehem, with bread (“food”). God had not forgotten the people. Just as in other contexts during the period of the Judges, God returns to deliver and renew life with the people.

Understandably, widowed and without sons, Noami decides to return to her homeland. We don’t know what happens to an Israelite widow in Moab who has no sons. She may have lost all ability to sustain herself, though she still had two daughters-in-law. However, she recognizes Yahweh’s grace to Judah and hopes, perhaps against hope, to participate in it herself as one whose family roots are in Bethlehem. But she has no assurances, and it is a risky journey. Her tragic circumstances do not encourage hope but perhaps the journey is based on some hope, or perhaps it is more like going home to die. What she says to the daughter-in-laws in the next section might lead us to think it is more the latter rather than the former.

Naomi Urges her Daughter-in-Laws to Stay in Moab (Ruth 1:8-13)

But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back each of you to your mother’s house. May the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. The LORD grant that you may find security, each of you in the house of your husband.” Then she kissed them, and they wept aloud. They said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband tonight and bear sons, would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the LORD has turned against me.”

Three times Noami encourages here daughters-in-law to “turn back” (the verb is used six times in Ruth 1:8-13; thirteen times in chapter 1 [“return”]).

• Turn back, and Naomi blesses them (1:8-9)
• Turn back, and Naomi questions them (1:11)
• Turn back, and Naomi theologizes with them (1:12-13)

We don’t know how far they had traveled; perhaps they were on the verge of crossing the Jordan or entering Judah. Whatever the case, Naomi announces it is time for them to separate. She will go to Bethlehem, and the daughters-in-law must return to their “mother’s house.” If they return to their “mother’s house,” they might perhaps find future husbands. But if they continue with Naomi, she has no sons to offer them.

This is a remarkable sacrifice on her part. Her two daughters-in-law are her only support system, the only family she has in Moab. This reflects Naomi’s compassion for her daughters and perhaps even her own hopelessness.

In her first word, Naomi blesses them: “May Yahweh deal kindly (hesed) with you.” This is an important moment in the story. First, Naomi has not lost faith in her God to whom she still prays and offers blessings in Yahweh’s name. Second, she blesses them with the sort of experience from Yahweh that they have showed her and her sons. These Moabite daughters-in-law have been people of hesed (loving kindness; loyalty); Moabites can exhibit a key aspect of Yahweh’s life. Yahweh has an effective presence in Moab through these women; the borders of Judah and Moab do not delimit God’s presence. Hesed is a pervasive and central description of the God of Israel (see Psalm 136; Exodus 34:6-7). These Moabite women have practiced hesed, a quality that fundamentally describes Yahweh. Third, Naomi wants them to find “security” (literally, “rest”) in the home of another husband. Her wish prayer—that Yahweh would give them—is for peace and prosperity in the land of Moab with new husbands. Her heart only has grace and blessing for her daughters-in-law.

Both daughters, however, refuse to return to their mother’s house but press to return with Naomi to her people.

Naomi’s second word to her daughters-in-law questions their decision. “Why will you go with me?” Their refusal to return to Moab appears irrational to Naomi. There is no reason for them to continue with her. Their prospects are better in Moab than in Judah. It is better to return to their mother’s house in Moab than to continue with a widow into Judah. She has no more sons to offer them.

Naomi’s third word offers a piece of theology as a rationale for returning to Moab instead of continuing with her to Judah. While she expands the argument that there are no prospects for a husband arising from her womb, her final point concerns Naomi’s relationship with Yahweh.

Her reasoning is progressive: she has no husband, and even if she gets a husband and bear sons, would you wait until they were of marriageable age? Can you wait that long to marry? That is a lot of “ifs.” In other words, it is unimaginable to Naomi that her daughters-in-law would return with her in hopes of finding rest with her house. Even if rest is possible, it is years away. It is better if they return to their mother’s house and seek husbands in their own land and culture.

Her theological statement, however, is the clincher. It is the climactic point. The daughters-in-law must “turn back” because “it has been more bitter for me than for you,” and this is “because the hand of Yahweh has turned against me.”

Her bitterness—a theme to which we will return in the next lesson due to her statement in Ruth 1:20—is greater than her daughters-in-law. This certainly includes her multiple losses—a husband and two sons, though the daughters-in-law also lost husbands and a father-in-law. All three women lost their support system. Nevertheless, Naomi’s loses are “more bitter,” more tragic, though all losses are devastating. But her sense of “more bitter” is grounded in her next statement.

Naomi attributes here tragic circumstance, her bitterness, to the hand of Yahweh. She attributes, in some sense, her losses to Yahweh’s action or power.

Yahweh is still her God. She blessed her daughters-in-law in the name of Yahweh. At the same time, she believes God is responsible for her tragedies that generated her bitterness. The phrase “hand of Yahweh” refers to divine acts or divine sovereignty (see Numbers 11:23; Joshua 4:24; Isaiah 41:20; 59:1). Job, who himself was bitter (Job 7:11; 9:18; 10:1; 27:2), had a similar perspective: “Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?” (Job 12:9).

While I will say more about this in next week’s lesson, it seems that Naomi did not want her daughters-in-law to go to Judah with her because of her bitterness which is the result of the hand of Yahweh. In other words, perhaps she means that the daughters-in-law will find rest in Moab but not in Judah because to go to Judah is to continue with Naomi in her bitter situation. Perhaps she means that the daughters-in-law should not subject themselves to the ongoing bitterness in which Naomi lives because the hand of Yahweh is against her. She does not want her daughters-in-law to share her ongoing bitterness and Yahweh’s seeming hostility towards her. They will not find rest in Judah with Naomi because Yahweh’s hand has, literally, “gone out” against Namoi.

The Daughter-in-Laws Choose (Ruth 1:14-18)

Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. So she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said,

            “Do not press me to leave you

                        or to turn back from following you!

            Where you go, I will go;

                        Where you lodge, I will lodge;

            your people shall be my people,

                        and your God my God.

            Where you die, I will die—

                        there will I be buried.

            May the LORD do thus and so to me,

                        and more as well,

            if even death parts me from you!”

When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.

Orpah kissed Naomi, but Ruth clung to her. Orpah turned back “to her people and to her gods,” and Ruth embraces Naomi’s people and God. Orpah returned to Moab, and Ruth continued with Naomi.

Both Orpah and Ruth have great affection for Naomi. Orpah kisses her and returns to Moab. She doesn’t leave Naomi in anger; she does not reject Namoi. She surrenders to her wish and accepts Naomi’s blessing. Indeed, from every reasonable point of view, Orpah makes the most sensible choice, as difficult as it was. Orpah is not critiqued for her decision; she submits to her mother-in-law’s direction. She does exactly as Naomi blessed her to do. She leaves with Naomi’s blessing.

Yet, Ruth “clung” to her, which is an intimate verb reflecting a close relationship (Genesis 2:24). Ruth is immovable; she is going to hang on to Naomi. This is beyond the bounds of duty. There is no obligation. It is gracious; it is Ruth’s gift to Naomi.

Instead of returning to her mother’s house, Ruth commits to sharing Naomi’s future: where she lives, the people among whom she lives, the God she worships, and the ground where she will be buried.

It is a wonderful statement of loyalty and commitment. It arises out of her hesed for Naomi, which arises from Yahweh’s own work in that family. This is the sort of commitment (covenant) Yahweh has made the people of Judah, and Ruth commits to share Naomi’s people and God. It is a commitment until death parts them, and even in death, Ruth will remain in the land and be buried in the place where Naomi is buried. Her commitment is total.

Ruth confirms this commitment with an oath using the name of Yahweh. It is a self-imprecation: “may Yahweh kill me if I don’t keep my promise to you.”

Perhaps her invocation of the name of Yahweh—whose hand had brought bitterness to Naomi’s life and in whose name Naomi had blessed her daughters-in-law—convinced Naomi that there was no use in trying to persuade Ruth otherwise. She swore an oath in the name of Yahweh, and there is no taking that back. Consequently, she said nothing else to her about it.

So, Naomi and Ruth continued their journey to Judah and ultimately Bethlehem. The widow with her barren daughter-in-law return to the land which Yahweh has recently “visited” with grace. What will they find there?

Naomi’s Tragedies (Ruth 1:1-5)

NRSV: “In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab, he and his wife and two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion; they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. When they had lived there about ten years, both Mahlon and Chilion also died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.”

Thus begins the story of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. In the first paragraph, however, she is a minor character and the emphasis lies on Naomi.

Her story is located in a specific time, situation, and space.

“In the days when the Judges ruled” points us to the period described in the book of Judges—the book that precedes Ruth in the Protestant arrangement of biblical literature. Judges were both military leaders as well as, at times, judicial leaders. They were both political and religious leaders within Israelite culture. Yet, this was a time of moral degeneration within Israel’s culture. It was epitomized by the violent abuse of women (Judges 19:24-29; 21:20-24) and characterized as a time when everyone did what was right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25). The period of history in which Ruth’s story is situated is a violent, chaotic, and disturbing world.

And “there was a famine in the land” of Judah. In addition to moral confusion, the land fails to bear fruit and people are going hungry. Life in Judah was a subsistent one; it was based on dry agriculture (that is, crops depended on rain rather than irrigation). Famine wrecked economy of Israel. Life was a struggle, and apparently it called for desperate measures on the part of Elimelech and Naomi.

One such desperate measure was to leave the inheritance of their ancestors to live in a foreign land. They abandoned their inheritance to live in the land of that God had not given them, the land of Moab (Deuteronomy 2:8). They left the land given to their fathers and grandfathers in Bethlehem to move to Moab. Elimelech may have come from a rather important family, probably from the clan associated with Ephrath. David belonged to that clan (1 Samuel 17:12).

Moreover, the two sons married Moabite women. Joshua warned Israel about the danger of marrying the women of other peoples (Joshua 23:12). Indeed, Moabites (as well as Ammonites, both were the descendants of the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters, Genesis 19:31-39) were an excluded people—no Moabite for at least the first ten generations was permitted to participate in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3) Further, the two sons and their wives did not conceive any children over a period of ten years. This, too, would have been interpreted as a tragic reality.

We might raise a few questions here. Was the famine a judgment against Judah? Was this part of the cycle of unfaithfulness that leads to judgment in the book of Judges? We are not told, though it is possible. Jewish tradition often interpreted this paragraph as a sign of divine judgment. Was the move to Moab an abandonment of God’s inheritance? Was the move a lack of faith in God’s providence and faithfulness to God’s own possession? Was the marriage of the sons to Moabite women an act of unfaithfulness? Perhaps, but we are not told any such thing in explicit terms, though one might argue that the narrator presumes it and assumes the reader will recognize it. Nevertheless, the emphasis lies on the tragic circumstances rather than interpreting divine action and meaning.

The narrator pictures a degenerative scenario that reflects the mileu of the book of Judges. It narrates a degenerative spiral: famine, movement to Moab, marriage to Moabite women, childlessness, and the death of the husband and sons. But perhaps this is not so much a moral degeneration but a spiral into tragedy as things go from bad to worse and the proverbial “other shoe” continually drops over and over again.

Most importantly, who is left? The women survive, and they are vulnerable. Without a living male in a foreign country, there is no inheritance and no means of support. The women are alone. Naomi, in particular, is alone in a foreign land without male support so important in ancient culture. She has the responsibility of two widowed daughter-in-laws. She has no resources.

If the family left Judah in desperation, Naomi finds herself in an even more desperate situation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more desperate situation for an Israelite woman in the period of the Judges.

We might even say that Noami is the female Job of the Hebrew Bible. Or perhaps it is better to say that Job and Naomi share a similar losses and desperation, though her position as a woman in a patriarchal culture compounds it even more. Neither, however, seem to have a future worth living.

What would Naomi be thinking in this moment? How might she have viewed this unfolding tragedy? Fewell and Gunn, Compromising Redemption, pp. 26-27, offer a credible suggestion. Perhaps she was thinking something like this:

“She knew they should never have come. It had been wrong from the beginning. Leaving their own folk, their native place, to live among these foreigners. Elimelech’s death, the barrenness, now the deaths of her sons, both of them. They should all have gone back years ago when she had heard that the famine was over. The boys should never have married Moabite women. They should have gone back to find wives.”

Naomi probably lived with some significant regrets or perhaps some “what ifs” that would consume most people in her circumstance. Truly, it was a horrendous place to find oneself after living in Moab for at least ten years.

This lesson is based on Ephesians 4:1-16, delivered at the Northwest Christian Convention in Turner, OR, on July 30, 2023.

This is lesson was delivered at the Northwest Christian Convention in Turner, Oregon, on June 28, 2023.

The message is based on Ephesians 1:3-14.

Text: John 13:1-17

The sermon begins at about minute 43 at this link.

Through washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus teaches us to receive grace even when we feel unworthy and full of shame, and he also teaches us to follow his example of giving grace by serving others.

Text: Matthew 9:9-17

Jesus uses Hosea 6:6 to critique the criticism of some who objected to his eating with “tax collectors and sinners.”

The point? Jesus pursues mercy for the sake of healing, and this is at the heart of kingdom living. It is pouring new wine into wineskins.

Begins at the 45 minute mark.

This sermon was delivered at the Cedar Lane Church of Christ at Tullahoma, TN, on June 4, 2023.

On Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly in Proverbs 9, see also this blog.

John Mark Hicks (Outline, Harbor Lectures, Pepperdine, May 4, 2023)

Audible Available Here

My Contextual Understanding of 1 Timothy 2-3

1. The Gender Inclusiveness in Paul’s Letters. For example, in Romans 12:6-8 there are no male pronouns though masculine gender is used throughout in an inclusive way. Paul regularly says, “brothers” but includes women.
   
2. Context in Ephesus: False Teaching and Deception. Understanding 1 Timothy 2:11-15. A response to soft complementarian readings, click here. My understanding of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, click here. Or, this 60 minute presentation on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, click here.
   
3. The Connection Between 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Timothy 3. Let the women learn, and “she” will be saved as long as they continue in faith, love, holiness with modesty. Desiring to be a bishop is a noble task. Therefore, “if anyone” . . .

An Inclusive Understanding of 1 Timothy 3:2

1.“If anyone” is gender neutral, inclusive of both male and female.

“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone desires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1, ESV, italics=added text).

2. There are no male pronouns in the virtue list.

Idiou (one’s own; “his own” in ESV in 1 Tim 3:4[2x], “their own” in 3:12) is used instead of male pronouns.

3. There is nothing explicitly male in the virtue list.

Teaching, violence, and managing a household are not exclusively male behaviors.

4. The named virtues are also explicitly expected of women in 1 Timothy.

5. Deacons, including female deacons, must be “one-woman men.”

“Their wives, likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own (idiōn) households well” (1 Tim 3:11-12, ESV, italics=added text; underline=interpretative).

6. “One-woman man” is an idiomatic exclusion of infidelity.

7. “One-woman man” functions as a generic masculine for marital fidelity.

The generic masculine is the default practice of the NT in accordance with Greek grammar (“brothers, sons of the family” [Acts 3:25], “love your neighbor as yourself (masculine)” [Gal. 5:14], “blessed is the man (aner) who remains steadfast under trial” [Jam 1:12], “double-minded man (aner)” [Jam 1:8], “for the anger of man (aner) does not produce the righteousness of God” [Jam 1:19], “if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man (aner)” [Jam 3:1], “those who desire to be rich” [1 Tim 6:9], or “if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” [Luke 9:23]).

Reading with New Lenses: Seeing What Was Previously Obscured

1. Gifts of Pastoring/Leading/Teaching (Ephesians 4:11; Romans 12:6-8)
   
2. Female Household Leaders (Lydia, Nympha, Mary in Jerusalem, Elect Lady of 2 John; Prisca and Aquila; Philemon and Apphia)
   
3. Female Presbyters (probably Titus 2:1-5; possibly 1 Timothy 5:1-2).
   
4. Ordained Female “Office-Holders” in Early Centuries of the Church.[1]

---

[1] See Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Colleagues of Apostles, Presbyters, and Bishops: Women Syzygoi in Ancient Christian Communities,” in Patterns of Women’s Leadership in Early Christianity, eds. Joan E. Taylor and Ilaria L. E. Ramelli (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 26-58; Ute E. Esien, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Liturgical Press, 2000); Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2005), and Lynn H. Cohick and Amy Brown Hughes, Christian Women in the Patristic World: Their Influence, Authority, and Legacy in the Second Through Fifth Centuries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). For brief introduction, see Marg Mowczko, “Women Elders in Ancient Christian Texts (Part 1),” “Women Elders in Ancient Christian Texts (Part 2),” “Women Elders in Ancient Christian Texts (Part 3).”

John Mark Hicks (Pepperdine, Harbor Lectures, May 3, 2023)

Audio is available here

 Four Broad Approaches: A Matter of Hermeneutics

1. Culturally Enmeshed: Bounded by Ancient Patriarchy.
2. Culturally Accommodative: For the sake of the Gospel.
3. Theological Inclusivism: New Creation Theology.
4. Blueprint Exclusivism: Replication of the Text.

Theological Framework

1. Men and women share the same human identity (image of God) and human vocation (Gen 1:26-27).
2. The complementary differentiation of male and female enriches their shared vocation as priests and shepherds (co-rulers) within the creation (Gen 1:28).
3. Both male and female acted foolishly and introduced moral chaos into God’s good creation, resulting, among other disorders, in male domination of females (Gen 3:16).
4. God managed the redemptive economy of Israel within Ancient Near Eastern patrilineal culture while also signaling God was not bound by it (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Esther).
5. God acted through the Son in the Spirit to form men and women into the image of Christ as co-heirs of the Abrahamic promise experienced through the transformative, empowering, and gifting presence of the Spirit (Gal 3:26-29; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:1-40).
6. God gifts both men and women as co-workers in God’s mission through the ministry of new creation, embodying the present yet future reign of God (Rom 12:6-8; Eph 4:11-16).

Context of “Husband of One Wife”

Three Questions for Understanding the Framework of the List.

1. What is the nature of this list? Ad Hoc
2. What is the function of this list? Virtue List
3. What is the structure of this list? Reputation Among Outsiders

Three Questions for Evaluating Translation and Understanding.

1. Does it fit the function of the list?
2. Is it coherent with the meaning of the feminine converse in 1 Timothy 5:9?
3. Is it consistent with Pauline theology as a whole?

The Meaning of “Husband of One Wife” (One-Woman Man, Man of One Woman)

1. Does this require marriage, excluding singles? – “the husband of one wife” (Tyndale, KJV, ASV, CEV, RSV, NASB, ESV). [This translation was rarely interpreted as excluding singles, but it is the translation that was used for that claim generally.]
2. Does it prohibit second marriages of any sort? – “have only one wife” (NIV, 1984) or “husband of but one wife” (NCV, NIV-1984), GNB, or “married only once” (NRSV, NAB).
3. Does it only require faithfulness to one’s present spouse?[1] – “faithful/committed/true to his wife,” (NIV [2011], NLT, CEV, CEB, NEB, CJB).

---

[1] Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore of Cyrrhus, David Lipscomb, Collins, Knight, Fee, Köstenberger, Marshall, Towner, Hutson, Keener, Courtney A. Bailey, Glosscock (BSac, 1983, 244-458) and Page (JSNT, 1993, 105-20].

Does the Bible need interpretation? Why don’t we just read it and do it? Is interpretation necessary to do that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYcenGIFJo