On this page you will find Bible Commentaries on Ruth 1: 8.
You can also rate Ruth 1: 8.
Read this Verse in its Context
Loading ...And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother’s house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.
4 Bible Commentaries on Ruth 1: 8
If a woman married, she passed from the covering of her father to that of her husband. She passes from the family of her nativity to the family of her spouse. If the spouse is gone then she either belongs still (as some cultures continue to dictate today) to the spouse’s family.
In the US today, a woman who is divorced may again take back her maiden name, or may continue with her married name. The choice is hers but the married name is usually retained only for the sake of children, if any, and rarely retained if there are no children. A widow, however, retains the spouse’s name. The widow may revert to her maiden name, but it would be socially curious while the divorced woman’s reverting to the maiden name would not. Some vestiges of this, therefore, can be seen in our society today.
Naomi knows what rights she has or doesn’t have. Part of that is what necessitates the return to Israel. We have the ties to country. She has few rights in Israel, but being a foreigner she has less in Moab. Similarly, returning to Israel then the daughters-in-law would face the opposite. They would be the strangers, the outsiders, the Gentiles that are but a step above lepers.
Meanwhile, Naomi is speaking woman to woman. Women may not have rights but they have influence. They have power within their family. In this situation where no way was a good way, the best of possible ways was for these daughters-in-law to go home. Their mothers would greet them, perhaps grieve for them, and then, hopefully, speak to their respective husbands for them.
Genesis 16:1-2 shows one example of the influence of a wife (as is Genesis 3:6 but they had not learned of the consequences of actions, so it is not a fair comparison). The interactions of Jacob with his mother, Rebecca, and his two wives, Rachel and Leah, show the women of the house were not merely servants to be ignored. Consider the account of 1 Samuel 1, Elkanah with his wives Peninnah and, particularly, Hanna. Elkanah had to consent to giving away his first born son of his favored wife. Not only that, but she gave away, in today’s terms, the new big Buick, a sack of the best food, and a bottle of the finest wine from his cellar. In Esther 7, Haman and Ahasuerus were at Esther’s banquet and when Haman was in trouble he appealed to Esther (vs. 6-8). For a patriarchal society in the people of Israel, consider the cases of Athaliah, Jezebel, those of Israel and Judah that were called “queen” — they were the mothers of the kings, not spouses.
Never underestimate the power of a mother.
Commentary by Larry Swinford
Posted on:
6/2/2009 14:11 pm 
Mother’s house may be a phrase used to indicate a peculiar condition or a particular way of saying. For the words “Father’s house” are not used, even though it was a patriarchal society. Being widow they had no rights in their father’s house and it could be that they would just spend their life under the care of their mothers, Or is it that even their (Ruth and Orpah) mother were widows?
Commentary by Jayant ChristianPosted on:
6/2/2009 10:17 am
Biblical scholars, particularly the modern and minimalist, constantly crow at such passages as Ruth 1:8 because it appears to indicate that the words are not literal. That we make glosses in common conversation is irrelevant to them, as is the fact of varied expression forms used in our speech. Speaking to the daughters-in-law, Naomi says, “Go, return each to her mother’s house.” Surely, as some would say today, a woman standing directly before two other women would not say in their presence, “to each her mother’s house” as this is phrased. But before the English language translators had to form the words for our convenience, they had a base translation expression. We could just as easily say, “Brides, go, return, to mother’s house, each of you.” The words are not changed, except the flow of English phrasing to represent the Hebrew. The meaning is clearer, but the readability and sheer prettiness suffers. Which would you rather have, a story that reads well, or a phrasing that is accurate but cumbersome?
Some would rather read the passage as containing a prayer, which indeed it does but in the form of a blessing. Naomi was addressing her sons’ wives, but invoking a divine action, an indirect prayer. Notice the prayer in 1 Samuel 1:17, “Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him.” The High Priest Eli spoke in faith, perhaps a nudge by God for him to notice Hannah (vs. 12–13), and having heard the matter (vs. 15–16), Eli then spoke a blessing to her.
The concept of blessing can be as simple as empty words of a wish, such as the empty greetings of good day, good morning, etc. Or it can be such as Mary did in the presence of Jesus in John 2. Mary told Jesus that the party was out of wine. Jesus said it was not His time to do the miracles; this was not a situation of showing God’s power for God’s purposes. But then Mary’s relationship with Jesus gave her the sense of power that mothers have of children. She turned to the servers and confidently said, “What ever He says to you, do it.” Prayers are often like that. Sometimes it is faith, sometimes presumption.
Just as Eli confidently spoke with faith of God’s intentions based on his place and authority in God’s work before Israel, Naomi, as a follower of Yahweh (“the LORD”) spoke a blessing. It was either a prayer of faith, presumption, or possibly mere politeness. Just as “good bye” or “farewell” is a polite wish that your ‘going will be good’ or that you would “fare well” in your travels, this could be as simple as a “vaya con dios”—go with God.
Naomi is also making the case that she was not wishing the daughters-in-law to leave because she was unhappy with them, “as you have dealt with the dead” is connected to the blessing wish that God would “deal kindly with you.” Obviously, the women treated their husbands well and dealt with their deaths appropriately. Naomi then adds, “and with me” to make clear that they were not a pain or burden, arguments that mothers-in-law are notorious for. These women had “dealt kindly” with Naomi herself.
Carolyn Pressler discusses the blessing of Ruth and Orpah, giving a good reference to Katharine Sakenfeld’s treatment in the process (269). Carolyn called the action of the women to be a “model” of “loving faithfulness.” I especially call attention to Pressler’s observation, “The correspondence between divine action and human action is a theme that runs throughout the book of Ruth.”
The words are real. The sentiment is genuine. The feelings were good. The personal faith is present and honest.
Pressler, Carolyn. 2002. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=7W4-RjlzWy4C (accessed May 22, 2009).
Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob. 1985. Faithfulness in Action. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Commentary by Larry SwinfordPosted on:
5/22/2009 19:24 pm
Yes, the Old Testament doesn’t present a timid servant wife. Even Sarah prevailed over Abraham in the matter of Ishmael. The Lord also told him to heed his wife. So the degraded position of women has nothing to do with the O.T. society. We have the narration of a virtuous woman. a powerful and influential woman in Proverb 31.