of Jonah and Job present an alternative view. The hardliners felt superior, not only for being the privileged class in Jerusalem but also for having had the important experience of exile. Their hubris consisted especially in considering themselves to be the only ones who could define God and this new monotheism. Yes, God had spoken to them in Babylon, but they assumed that God had spoken only to them. Such absolutism and smugness virtually guaranteed dissent.
Thus, despite the conformity and unification usually associated with the period 538–350 BCE, it is really not surprising that considerable dissent arose against the theology and policies of the hardliners. What is surprising, however, is that this dissent assumed—not the form of riots and demonstrations—but the elegant form of great literature. The hardliners, it should be remembered, were quite adept at producing literature and were in fact responsible for the final form of Genesis through 2 Kings, as well as 1 and 2 Chronicles. There could not have been a more effective and appropriate way for dissenters to upstage, rebut, or educate the hardliners than to produce protest literature that in subtlety and refinement matched or even surpassed the literature produced by the hardliners.
The liberal literature to be explored in this book includes the following: the story of Rahab in Joshua 2 and the books of Job, Jonah, and Ruth—all of them works of extraordinary ingenuity and sophistication, and all dating from the postexilic period.
The objective of this exploration is, first, to show how these texts define God and how their definition of God influenced postexilic Judah, and then—importantly—to explain how their definition of God speaks to the current situation in the United States of America.
1. Scholars disagree about when the inhabitants of Judah can be called Jews, but the Hebrew word for “Jews” is the same as the Hebrew word for “inhabitants of Judah.” Thus, in this book, the term “Jews” will be used to mean “anyone living in Judah.” This term is not to be taken in a religious sense unless so specified.
2. Butterfield, 49–50.
3. Ibid., 67–68.
4. Schama, 40.
Ruth
Preliminary Remarks
The book of Ruth is relevant to this study, not only because it operates unhesitatingly on the assumption that God is indeed gracious, but also because it dramatically demonstrates God’s desire to embrace all humankind. In both these ways, the book of Ruth reveals a God far different from the one pictured by the Jerusalem hardliners.
Ruth: Chapter 1
The story begins by claiming to be set in the period before the monarchy, the period of the so-called judges. Scholars agree, however, that it dates from postexilic Judah, most likely from the fourth century BCE. Biblical texts often pretend to be older than they really are because, in matters of religion, the Jews thought that older texts were more authoritative.
The action begins in Bethlehem, which is undergoing a famine. For this reason, an Israelite man, his wife, and two sons leave the country and go to Moab. To appreciate the significance of this choice of destinations, it is important to know that historically the Israelites had suffered much at the hands of several foreign countries, including the Edomites and the Egyptians, but that the Israelites had generally overcome their hatred of these two countries, as evidenced by Deuteronomy 23:8–9, which reads: “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your kinsman. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land. Children born to them may be admitted into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation.” Thus, descendants of the Edomites and the Egyptians are permitted to marry into Israel. But such is not at all the case with Moab or Ammon, which are the object of undying hatred among the Israelites, as evidenced by Deuteronomy 23:4–5, which reads: “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the congregation of the Lord, because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt, and because they hired Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse you.”
Thus, in the book of Ruth, an Israelite family goes to settle in a country that occupies a special place in the annals of Jewish xenophobia. Moab is the most enduringly and intensely despised of Israel’s neighbors. Moab even hired a prophet to put a curse on the Israelites. Of course, the author of the book of Ruth chose Moab as the place where this Israelite family settles. The point is to make what follows all the more extraordinary. If something good can come out of Moab, the xenophobia of the hardliners in Jerusalem will be put to shame, and that is exactly the aim of this narrative.
The father of the Israelite family that settles in Moab is Elimelech; his wife is Naomi, and his two sons are Mahlon and Chilion. After they have settled in Moab, Elimelech dies and leaves Naomi with their two sons. The sons marry Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. Ten years later, both sons die, so that Naomi is now without husband or sons or grandchildren. Thus, Naomi is in a precarious situation. She has no means of support, no property in Moab, and no family at all in Moab except for these two daughters-in-law, who are themselves widowed and thus also living precariously. Importantly, these women have no man to protect them, and for that reason all three have suffered a significant loss in social status. They are déclassées and defenseless.
Seeing no reason to remain in Moab, Naomi decides to return to Israel, because she has heard that God has put an end to the famine there. So, then, she sets out on the road to Bethlehem, accompanied by both Orpah and Ruth. But it soon occurs to Naomi that it would be unwise for Orpah and Ruth to leave their native country. Out of loving concern for her daughters-in-law, Naomi tells them to go back to their families of origin, and she asks God to deal kindly with them, just as they have dealt kindly with her and her two sons. The point is that, in the same way that it was wildly impractical for Israelites to settle in Moab, so it would be fruitless or even dangerous for Moabites to seek refuge in Israel. Thus, Naomi encourages Orpah and Ruth to stay in Moab and marry there. As she kisses them farewell, the daughters-in-law break into tears, saying: “No, we will return with you to your people.” Note the possessive pronoun “your,” which subtly reminds the reader of the awkward differences between Moabites and Israelites. Naomi is mindful of potential problems and thus urges Orpah and Ruth to go back home. Naomi employs the argument that she is too old to give them Israelite husbands again even if she married. Thus, these two young women need to think about marrying in Moab. More importantly, she says, it is not to their advantage to remain with her; her lot is worse than theirs, because the Lord has made it so. This last remark lends credence to the important suggestion that the God of Israel is at work orchestrating events.
Again, Orpah and Ruth break into tears. Then Orpah prudently decides to take Naomi’s advice and bids her farewell, never to appear again in the narrative. But Ruth clings to Naomi, who, in response, affirms the wisdom of Orpah’s decision and reiterates the estrangement that exists between Moabites and Israelites by saying that Orpah has returned to her people and to her gods and that Ruth should do likewise.
But Ruth replies, in words that over the centuries have lost none of their emotional and spiritual power: “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may the Lord do to me if anything but death parts me from you.”
With respect to this amazing statement, it is important that nothing in this story suggests that Ruth has become acculturated or converted to Israelite religion. In fact, both Naomi’s statements and Ruth’s have, up to this point, repeatedly shown an awareness that Israelite
