“Don’t call me Naomi,” she said. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter.” – Ruth 1:20
We love happy endings. But some stories begin with unraveling.
The book of Ruth opens not with love or laughter, but with loss. It starts in the dark, with three funerals and a famine. No miracles. No thunderbolts. Just life falling apart quietly.
The first chapter is often seen as Ruth’s chapter—her loyalty, her beautiful speech of faith. But look more closely. This is Naomi’s story. She speaks first. She suffers most. The narrator focuses on her return, her bitterness, her complaint, and ultimately her restoration. If the book were named for the central emotional arc of chapter 1, it might be called “Naomi”.
Naomi is frequently recognized as the female Job[1] and she becomes a symbol of devastating loss and deep lament. But unlike Job, her restoration begins not with divine speech or fire from heaven—but with a quiet companion on a dusty road.
Naomi’s journey echoes the story of Job – a faithful soul emptied by calamity. Like Job, she becomes a symbol of devastating loss and deep lament. But unlike Job, whose restoration comes through dramatic divine speech, Naomi’s restoration will begin quietly – through the unexpected grace of a foreign daughter-in-law walking by her side on a dusty road. We will walk that road with Naomi and Ruth. Along the way we’ll explore key themes of exile and return, suffering and providence, ḥesed (loyal love) and the surprising agency of women. Ruth 1 sets the stage for a redemptive tale nestled in the turmoil of the Judges era, ultimately pointing beyond itself to King David’s lineage and God’s redemptive purposes in history.
This story reminds us that God’s plan for the universe is implemented in the little details. In the lives of seemingly ordinary people. God’s purpose is powered by hesed, by loyal love in the humblest of places.
From Bethlehem to Moab: When Bread Fails Ruth 1:1-2
“In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land…” (Ruth 1:1)
Bethlehem—ironically, “house of bread”—is out of food. And so Naomi, her husband Elimelech, and their two sons leave their ancestral land in Judah and journey to Moab. According to the Anchor Yale Commentary they specifically head to the Moab plateau an attractive and relatively fertile place:
Closest and most easily accessible to Bethlehem would be the north portion of what can be termed “ideal Moab.” This lies north of the river Arnon (modern Wādi Mōjib) and extends to a line just north of the top of the Dead Sea, a rough square twenty-five miles on a side. Included are the “plains of Moab” (Num 22:1, 33:48 ff., etc.), a part of the rift valley across the Jordan from Jericho. Stretching south from this rather well-watered and rich plot is flattish tableland, its western flank rising abruptly from the Dead Sea to a point 3300–3700 feet above the Dead Sea (2000–2400 feet above mean sea level). The tableland is marked by higher peaks such as Mount Nebo and by such key cities as Heshbon, Medeba, and Dibon among a host of Iron Age settlements….
This tableland is fertile and comparatively well-watered. The abrupt rise from the Dead Sea forms a rain barrage, so that the western half of this region gets a fair rainfall[2]
The JPS commentary states the annual rainfall was 16 inches (about 41cm) and it was predominantly a windy pastureland[3]. The usual rainfall in Bethlehem – also a watershed – is around 24 inches[4] (around 61 cm). Both levels are low and any drop below average would for a few years in a row would be problematic.
Referencing research on evident significant grain production Hubbard notes:
The fertile Moabite plateau may have been an important breadbasket for Palestine and thereby regularly attracted famine refugees[5]
However Moab is not a random place. It’s historically a thorn in Israel’s side (see Numbers 25 and Deuteronomy 23:3–6). The Moabite women had seduced the Israelites. Their gods were abhorrent to YHWH. Later, Moab oppressed Israel under King Eglon (Judg. 3:12-14). The law even excluded Moabites from the assembly of Israel to the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3-4). But starvation doesn’t always leave room for theological reflection.
This is no mere road trip—it’s exile.
Verse 2 says they were “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah.”
Ephrathites appears to be used in Gen 35:19, Mic 5:2 and 1 Sam 17:12 as an ethnic marker – a clan group. This has led to commentators suggesting the family was akin to the old family, old money in the region[6] which may also explain the amount of social reaction to Naomi’s return.
What’s in a name? Not much…
In v2 we are introduced the family by name. Much is made of the name meanings (or presumed meanings) of each character in the following verses but no consistent expositional approach is kept.
Elimilech’s name is usually understood to mean “my king is god” (although it could also contain a reference to Molech the Amonnite god?[7]). Elimilech doesn’t behave as if God is his king though. Naomi on the other hand
is from the adjective נֹעַם (noam, “pleasant, lovely”) and literally means “my pleasant one” or “my lovely one.”[8]
It should be noted that while this is generally agreed there are still some uncertainties on the detail of the name[9]. Given the record in Ruth 1:20-22 has Naomi made a clear word play on her name changing it to Mara (bitterness) this meaning and significance in the record seems clear.
Mahlon and Kilion are unclear. The NET notes provide a common suggestions of “sickly” and “frail”[10].
The meanings of the two sons’ names are equally uncertain. Mahlon probably derives from mḥl, a root unattested in Hebrew except in proper names, and hence whose sense is unknown. Thus far no comparable Semitic name has been found, and its relationship to the oft-cited Arabic word maḥala, “to be sterile,” is uncertain. The same applies to other proposed derivations, particularly those based on other Arabic cognates. Like Mahlon, Chilion has the -ôn ending common among Semitic proper names and is probably attested at Ugarit in the name ki-li-ya-nu. On the one hand, if it is derived from the root klh, “be complete, be at an end,” it would mean something like “perfection, completeness” or (negatively) “pining, annihilation.” On the other hand, if it is a diminutive form of Heb. kelî, “vessel,” its sense would be “little vessel.”[11]
Edwards concurs saying the etymologies are uncertain and we just don’t know[12]
While we are on names:
Orpah is frequently taken to mean the back of the neck which Jewish midrash jumped on as reflective of her actions. However the name can just as readily mean cloud.[13] And again Edwards not we have no great explanation of the name’s meaning[14] it is as Hubbard says just “an unsolved mystery”[15].
Ruth is suggested by the NET notes an Lexham Dictionary as meaning “friendship”[16], [17] Although others suggest “replenish/restore”[18] The International Bible Encyclopedia notes either “companion, friend” or “satiated, satisfied”[19]. The AYB Commentary says supports ‘satiation, refreshment’ as the most likely meaning with support from the Mesah inscription qualifying the meansing as tentative until we gain further information.[20]
While there is definitely a play on Naomi’s name it seems any interpretation drawing on the meaning of the names of the characters is misplaced at best.
Tragedy upon tragedy Ruth 1:3-5
In Moab, everything goes wrong.
Sometime later Naomi’s husband Elimelech died, so she and her two sons were left alone Ruth 1:3
Naomi has gone from possibly a significant clan in the house of bread to a refugee in Moab and now she becomes a widow with her two sons. Things have gone from bad to worse but she still has hope. She marries off her two sons to local women. In such societies marriages are typically arranged as a means of gaining social standing and alliances. The sons of a widow refugee offered little, as one commentator notes for the Moabite families giving over their daughters this was “marrying down”[21]. For the first time in the record we have a hint of female initiative. For Naomi these marriages provided her with a hope for her future.
Ruth 1:4 records that ten years pass. 10 years without any children from either marriage. It seems that her daughters-in-law are infertile. Hubbard notes a potential echo – in Gen 16:3 after ten years in Canaan without bearing children Sarai gives up and gives Hagar to Abraham[22]. Naomi’s hopes from these marriages are dashed. In the ancient world, childlessness would have been a source of grief and shame, compounding the family’s sorrow.
Then Naomi’s two sons, Mahlon and Kilion, also died. So the woman was left all alone—bereaved of her two children as well as her husband! Ruth 1:5
Masked in the Hebrew is a very human detail of the story telling. Until now the story has used the normal word for sons but in Ruth 1:5 with the loss of her boys the Hebrew becomes the word yeled which is used of a young boy (and sometimes pejoratively of fools to indicate immaturity) [23]. This is the only time the word is used explicitly of married men[24] It will next be used of Naomi holding the young yeled Obed in Ruth 4:16. So what? The storyteller wants us to understand the human dimension. Naomi didn’t lose her sons. She lost her babies. The aching heart of any mother who has lost her children of any age is reflects in her quiet suffering.
In Hebrew storytelling, repetition and pacing matter. The slow tolling of loss—first her home, then her husband, her hope of grandchildren and then her baby boys—is the emotional heartbeat of this chapter. The grief is cumulative. She has not just lost people. She has lost her protection, provision, and posterity. There is a painful irony here, she left Bethlehem because it was empty, and now she is empty.
When human plans fail grace moves Ruth 1:6
There is nothing, literally nothing left for Naomi. But then for the first time there is a hint of providence:
she had heard that the Lord had shown concern for his people, reversing the famine by providing abundant crops Ruth 1:6
Naomi hears the whispers —a rumor of bread in Bethlehem. Notice this: Naomi hears of God’s kindness while still in Moab. God is moving. Restoration begins not in a blaze of glory but through ordinary gossip about a good harvest.
In the absence of a male in the family Naomi has become the head of the house (cp Mic 7:6). All the actions in v6 are singular feminine. Naomi is the sole decision maker and she decides her chances are better in Bethlehem than Moab.
The Kindest Off-Ramp: Urging the women to stay in Moab Ruth 1:8-15
Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Listen to me! Each of you should return to your mother’s home! May the Lord show you the same kind of devotion that you have shown to your deceased husbands and to me! May the Lord enable each of you to find security in the home of a new husband!” Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept loudly Ruth 1:7-8
Naomi here demonstrates the first act of sacrificial love in the book[25]. Naomi is desperately alone. In theory the two daughters-in-law could help care of her, together they had a better chance of survival perhaps. But Naomi puts the interest of the women first and suggests they return to their family homes to seek another marriage. Although everyone would assume them barren, the women could at least hope to become a second wife and at least have some measure of economic security and limited measure social acceptability. As Schipper notes in Ruth when women talk about marriage and offspring it is about material security (Ruth1:8-9, 3:1, 4:14-15)[26] .
Naomi offers a two-pronged blessing to the two women in v8-9, that YHWH will show them the hesed they have shown and YHWH will also give them new husbands. The grammar of v9 is somewhat odd which the NET observes. Schipper (without much support elsewhere) suggests it indicates a broken thought, change in direction by Naomi and renders the verse:
May YHWH give to you … [Oh, forget it!] Find rest, each one in the household of her husband[27]
The two younger women refuse to leave in Ruth 1:10 explicitly stating their loyalty to her, so Naomi emphasises the hopelessness of their (and her) position. She points to the extreme unlikeliness of any chance of hope (which obviously in her culture hope for a woman was a husband!):
- If somehow I could be fertile again v11
- If I could get married right now v12
- If I conceived a son v12
- If you would even wait till he grew up v 13
Having pointed out the logical hopeless of their position, Naomi continues in Ruth1:13b
No, my daughters, you must not return with me. For my intense suffering is too much for you to bear. For the Lord is afflicting me! Ruth 1:13b
The expression “my intense suffering is too much for you to bear” has caused some interpretive challenges[28]. Bush notes four possibilities but comes down on the grammatical and contextual grounds basically with the NET reading that Naomi’s intense suffering was too much for the younger women to share[29]. Ie Naomi is determined they should not have to suffer with her.
Faced with the repeated directions and common sense, Orpah returns to Moab in line with Naomi’s wishes and advice.
Dealing with those who leave
Here’s a question we don’t often ask: How do we treat those who leave our faith community?
Naomi attempts to “return them geographically and to release them emotionally”[30] ie she provides them a generous offramp. She honours them with tears and two blessings.
Too often in church or community, we treat departures as betrayal. But Naomi models grace. She blesses even as she breaks.
The Loyalty of Ruth – a glimpse of hesed Ruth 1v14-19
Again they wept loudly. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung tightly to her Ruth 1:14
Orpah listens and obeys Naomi. Ruth in contrast does the better thing and disobeys her family head to instead cling to Naomi. The word cling means:
to cling to, join with, stay with. It is used of something sticking to or clinging to something else[31]
It is used of marriage in Gen 2:23, but lest we make too much of that use it is also used of persistent leprosy, loyalty to others, loyalty to God, the king and how fish scales stick together and even of Ezekiel’s tongue sticking to the roof of his mouth (Ezek 3:26). Ruth goes on to express an extraordinary love of and loyalty to Naomi.
In Ruth 1:15 Naomi issues her fourth instruction to Ruth to quit and leave. She tells Ruth to imitate Orpah and go back to her gods (a plural word but possibly the majestic plural). The chief god of Moab was Chemosh – the destroyer or subduer and therefore assumed to be a god of war albeit we have limited evidence of what Chemosh was actually like beyond the Mesha stele (which speaks of Chemosh in terms not dissimilar to YHWH)[32]
Where you go, I will go… (Ruth 1:16)
Here, Ruth speaks the most famous words of the book—and possibly one of the greatest expressions of covenant love in all Scripture. This is no romantic vow. It is radical hesed—faithful, loving-kindness that binds itself to another at cost. Ruth abandons her nation, her gods, her kinship ties. She chooses the road of widowhood, poverty, and strangeness. She says, in essence: “Your God will be my God, even though you think He’s turned against you.”
Faith means sometimes stepping a long way from comfort and the familiar. Below is a 19th century prayer which is often claimed to be by Sir Francis Drake. It is not by him but is still a great prayer about stepping into the unknown. I like it….
“Disturb us, Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves, when our dreams have come true because we have dreamed too little, when we arrive safely because we have sailed too close to the shore. Disturb us, Lord, when with the abundance of things we possess, we have lost our thirst for the waters of life; having fallen in love with life, we have ceased to dream of eternity; and in our efforts to build a new earth, we have allowed our vision of the new Heaven to dim. Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly, to venture on wider seas where storms will show your mastery; where losing sight of land, we shall find the stars. We ask you to push back the horizons of our hopes; and to push into the future in strength, courage, hope, and love”[33]
Ruth is not just kind. She’s brave. The future is profoundly uncertain but she commits to being with Naomi. She steps into Naomi’s narrative of loss and walks with her through it.
Obviously this is a critical point in the book but Ruth’s action is particularly remarkable for a number of reasons as James points out[34]:
- Ruth for the first but not last time is demonstrating autonomy and initiative – unusual for a junior woman in the patriarchal world where even here she was under Naomi’s authority
- Her action is against her own self interest as Naomi has pointed out
- Both young women loved Naomi, but Ruth was driven by hesed – a deeper selfless love that transforms lives
- Ruth embraces not just Naomi but also her God
A bride would be expected to adopt the familial gods of her new household[35]. But Ruth goes beyond this cultural norm. Released from obligation, Ruth still chooses the God of Israel and she goes on to invoke the name of YHWH:
May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me. Ruth 1:17
Ruth made a wholehearted commitment to an uncertain dangerous future because of love and seemingly a faith in the God of Israel. This was an eyes wide open commitment made knowing it means bearing a cross (Matt 16:24)
Dr. Jean Staker Garton made this statement:
“Many Christians say glibly, ‘Lord, I’ll gladly bear the cross and follow you.’ But in our hearts we add, ‘If it’s lightweight, collapsible, transferable, and with a money-back guarantee.’ If you are a Christian, make sure you look good on wood.” Think about it: sometimes life is not fair. But this life … is not life. It’s the foyer to the future with the Father.[36]
Ruth is not making a simple shallow sentimental statement. That’s theology. Ruth, a Moabite, takes on the name of Israel’s God because of her love for her mother-in-law. Naomi doesn’t realise it yet, but her restoration has already begun.
Which got me wondering about an experiment…the meaning of hesed overlaps somewhat sacrificial love as we celebrate it in the NT ….so what if….I rewrote 1 Cor 13 the chapter on love but about Ruth in Ruth chapter 1? Well I didn’t. But I told ChatGPT to have a go based on my study notes. What it produced is below and is kind of beautiful…
If I speak with the voice of angels, but do not love like Ruth, I am only noise — not loyalty.
If I understand all mysteries and have unwavering faith, but I do not choose to stay when I could leave, I gain nothing.
Love, as Ruth shows it, stays. It walks into exile. It lets go of what was — to cling to who is. It leaves behind home, gods, and comfort — not out of duty, but devotion.
Love says, “Where you go, I will go. Where you stay, I will stay.
Your people will be my people, your God my God.”This love doesn’t flinch at grief or distance. It binds itself with blessing. It does not demand a return. It simply returns.
Ruth-love never fails. Where others part, it clings. Where others release, it remains. When all else fades, it endures — quietly, faithfully, all the way home.
Back in Bethlehem: Bitter Names and Hidden Grace Ruth 1:19-22
“So the two women went on until they came to Bethlehem.” (v19)
When they arrive, the whole town stirs. People remember Naomi. They see how much she’s aged. She’s unrecognizable in grief. Strangely there is no mention of Ruth – reflecting perhaps her status of as a foreign daughter-in-law but also the reality that the drama of the book is about Naomi.
Her name means “pleasant.” But she says in v20, “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter.”
Naomi is honest. She doesn’t fake joy. She doesn’t throw out religious platitudes. She says, in effect, “Don’t lie to me with my old name. Life has broken me.” We don’t often allow this level of lament in our churches. We want people to smile, to trust, to “move on.” But Naomi shows us something holy in naming pain.
She lays responsibility for her pain on God, using the term Shaddai meaning probably “Almighty” [37],albeit some conclude there is no satisfactorily supported meaning and we need more evidence[38]. The title is used 48 times in the OT and 31 of these occurrences are in Job. It is also common in Genesis but also occurs in some later books like Ezekiel. In v21 Naomi sees God against her as a legal accuser, a witness against her[39]. The AYB Commentary suggests the word choice might be more to support a rhyme with Naomi rather than a specific allusion to legal proceedings.[40]
Naomi’s speech is met with….nothing. She says her part and then nothing happens. We know this marks the end of part 1 of the story – the disasters are now done. Naomi doesn’t know that. We don’t know when the pain will stop but God has as a plan. Not a to do list for your life, not a safety cushion for the tough times but a plan to save you and bring new life and joy. We just can’t see it or know when the plan will take effect.
What about Ruth right at this point? How did she feel?
She was a young working woman whose life was hard: single, married, and then single again, living in a multicultural society, and responsible for the care of an older relative who always looked at life as a glass half empty. What if nothing good happened in the next chapter? What if she and Naomi simply eeked out a miserly living, year after year, with Ruth always being tired after a day of manual labour, with Naomi always surly and in poor health until she died. What if Ruth stayed in Bethlehem, known all her life as “the alien,” until she also finally died? In other words, if there had been no Boaz—is God still good?[41]
Ruth is invisible to us at this point, we don’t know how she was holding up.
Naomi left Bethlehem because she thought she was empty. Now she returns to Bethlehem and she is truly empty (Ruth 1:21) – missing all she actually held dear. Yet here’s the twist: While Naomi says she has come back “empty” Ruth is right there.
She doesn’t see it yet, but God has already planted the seed of restoration—in Ruth’s loyalty, in Ruth’s presence. Ruth was the blessing – but Naomi didn’t see it, not yet.
Three Reflections from the Bitter Road
1. How Do We Deal with Leavers?
Naomi gives us a better model: emotional honesty and a generous blessing. She releases Orpah with affection, not accusation. Sometimes, grace means letting people go kindly, means giving people real freedom to choose without thinking they will lose our love.
In church life, we face this again and again—when people move on, walk away, or deconstruct. Are we Naomi or something colder?
A community that offers tearful blessings—not ultimatums—may find itself surprised by who chooses to stay and who might even return.
2. If You’re Ruth, and You’re Not Being Recognised…
Be patient. The work of God isn’t always seen immediately. Naomi couldn’t see what Ruth meant yet. Naomi said she was empty – yet Ruth had sacrificed everything to support Naomi – this surely felt like an insult. Ruth’s presence was already transforming the future for Naomi.
Maybe you are the Ruth in someone’s life—a silent presence of grace they don’t yet recognise. A faithful friend whose relationship and support is not being valued, or even publicly denigrated.
Don’t give up. God often works through unnoticed companionship. Ruth didn’t’ abandon the bitter Naomi who ascribed no worth to Ruth in this public moment. Ruth continued to be there and ultimately was recognised by everyone as wonderful.
3. When Life Feels Hopeless, the Plan May Already Be Unfolding
Naomi thought her story was over. But God was already weaving redemption. She was trudging defeated and hopeless back to Bethlehem with the means of her salvation walking right alongside her! It would be months before she realised what was happening. God starts restoration a long time before we ever realise there is a chance.
That’s the real heart of Ruth 1. The Redeemer’s plan starts when everything still looks dead. When we say “I have nothing left,” heaven whispers, “Watch this…”
Christ in the Shadows
Ruth’s loyalty points beyond herself. Her love prefigures Christ’s own walk with us through pain. Naomi didn’t just need food—she needed someone to go with her. And so do we.
Jesus walks the road back with every bitter soul.
“I will never leave you nor forsake you.” (Hebrews 13:5)
He is more than Ruth. He is the eternal companion. He is the love that does not let go, even when we say, “I am empty.”
And in the words of Romans 8:
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine…? No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.” (Rom. 8:35–37)
I love, but am also terrified of, the words of Habakkuk in Hab 3:16-19 who notes his entire life is destroyed and hopeless and his whole body is shaking in fear and his stomach is churning there are no crops or any blessings at all yet he concludes
The sovereign Lord is my source of strength. He gives me the agility of a deer; he enables me to negotiate the rugged terrain. Hab 3:19
He doesn’t wrap me in cotton wool. He doesn’t protect from loss and pain. He gives strength to negotiate the rugged terrain – and Jesus walks beside us – all the way home.
Conclusion: When We Return Bitter, We Are Not Alone
Maybe you feel like Naomi — empty, bitter, misunderstood, broken and hurt? Maybe the road back feels long. Maybe there’s no more road in front of you – just challenge. But even then, God has not abandoned you. Sometimes, it’s the one whisper of good news that can start the next chapter. Sometimes, the Ruth we don’t see beside us is the grace – the blessing is walking quietly beside you long before you can name it.
Maybe you are the unrecognised Ruth for someone right now (or could be the Ruth). If perhaps you aren’t in a Naomi space this week you have the opportunity to demonstrate a little more Ruth love because:
Ruth-love never fails. Where others part, it clings. Where others release, it remains. When all else fades, it endures — quietly, faithfully, all the way home.
And remember – in the ultimate plan, in the preparation of the kingdom of God, even bitterness, even the long sad road home is a beginning.
by Daniel Edgecombe
[1] James, Carolyn Custis. 2018. Finding God in the Margins: The Book of Ruth. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Douglas Mangum, Claire Brubaker, and Danielle Thevenaz. Transformative Word. Bellingham, WA; Burlington, ON: Lexham Press; St. George’s Centre.
[2] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 50.
[3] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 5.
[4] Paul H. Wright, Rose Then and Now Bible Map Atlas with Biblical Background and Culture (Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, 2012), 46–47.
[5] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 87.
[6] W. Gary Philips, Judges, Ruth, ed. Max Anders, vol. 5, Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2004), 302.
[7] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 52.
[8] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
[9] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 89.
[10] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
[11] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 89–90.
[12] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 53–54
[13] Kenneth A. Mathews, “Orpah (Person),” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 48.
[14] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 55.
[15] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 94.
[16] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
[17] R. Brian Rickett, “Ruth,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[18] Michael S. Moore, “Ruth,” in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 313.
[19] G. V. Smith, “Ruth,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 243.
[20] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 56.
[21] Carolyn Custis James, Finding God in the Margins: The Book of Ruth, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al., Transformative Word (Bellingham, WA; Burlington, ON: Lexham Press; St. George’s Centre, 2018), 28.
[22] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 95.
[23] Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 448.
[24] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 56.
[25] James, Carolyn Custis. 2018. Finding God in the Margins: The Book of Ruth. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Douglas Mangum, Claire Brubaker, and Danielle Thevenaz. Transformative Word. Bellingham, WA; Burlington, ON: Lexham Press; St. George’s Centre.
[26] Jeremy Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 7D, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2016), 103–104.
[27] Jeremy Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 7D, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2016), 71.
[28] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
[29] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 80–81.
[30] W. Gary Philips, Judges, Ruth, ed. Max Anders, vol. 5, Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2004), 303.
[31] Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 222.
[32] Michael D. Coogan, “Chemosh,” ed. Mark Allan Powell, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Revised and Updated) (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 127.
[33] W. Gary Philips, Judges, Ruth, ed. Max Anders, vol. 5, Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2004), 337.
[34] James, Carolyn Custis. 2018. Finding God in the Margins: The Book of Ruth. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Douglas Mangum, Claire Brubaker, and Danielle Thevenaz. Transformative Word. Bellingham, WA; Burlington, ON: Lexham Press; St. George’s Centre.
[35] V. H. Matthews, “Family Relationships,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 293.
[36] W. Gary Philips, Judges, Ruth, ed. Max Anders, vol. 5, Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2004), 308–309
[37] Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 1106.
[38] H. Niehr and G. Steins, “שַׁדַּי,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 422.
[39] Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, trans. Edward Broadbridge, First edition, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 51–52.
[40] Jeremy Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 7D, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2016), 109.
[41] W. Gary Philips, Judges, Ruth, ed. Max Anders, vol. 5, Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2004), 308–309.
Living Faith 