Rut 1:21

1:21 I left here full, ¹  but the Lord has caused me to return empty-handed. ²  Why do you call me ‘Naomi,’ seeing that ³  the Lord has opposed me, ⁴  and the Sovereign One ⁵  has caused me to suffer?” ⁶ 

Rut 2:10

2:10 Ruth ⁷  knelt before him with her forehead to the ground ⁸  and said to him, “Why are you so kind ⁹  and so attentive to me, ¹⁰  even though ¹¹  I am a foreigner?” ¹² 

Rut 3:10

3:10 He said, “May you be rewarded ¹³  by the Lord, my dear! ¹⁴  This act of devotion ¹⁵  is greater than what you did before. ¹⁶  For you have not sought to marry ¹⁷  one of the young men, whether rich or poor. ¹⁸ 

[1:21]  ¹ sn I left here full. That is, with a husband and two sons.

[1:21]  ² tn Heb “but empty the Lord has brought me back.” The disjunctive clause structure (vav + adverb + verb + subject) highlights the contrast between her former condition and present situation. Cf. TEV “has brought me back without a thing.”

[1:21]  sn Empty-handed. This statement is highly ironic, for ever-loyal Ruth stands by her side even as she speaks these words. These words reflect Naomi’s perspective, not the narrator’s, for Ruth will eventually prove to be the one who reverses Naomi’s plight and “fills” her “emptiness.” Naomi’s perspective will prove to be inaccurate and the women will later correct Naomi’s faulty view of Ruth’s value (see 4:15).

[1:21]  ³ tn The disjunctive clause structure (vav [ו] + subject + verb) here introduces either an attendant circumstance (“when the Lord has opposed me”) or an explanation (“seeing that the Lord has opposed me”).

[1:21]  ⁴ tc The LXX reads “humbled me” here, apparently understanding the verb as a Piel (עָנָה, ’anah) from a homonymic root meaning “afflict.” However, עָנָה (“afflict”) never introduces its object with בְּ (bet); when the preposition בְּ is used with this verb, it is always adverbial (“in, with, through”). To defend the LXX reading one would have to eliminate the preposition.

[1:21]  tn Heb “has testified against me” (KJV, ASV both similar); NAB “has pronounced against me.” The idiom עָנַה בִי (’anah viy, “testify against”) is well attested elsewhere in legal settings (see BDB 773 s.v. עָנָה Qal.3.a; HALOT 852 s.v. I ענה qal.2). Naomi uses a legal metaphor and depicts the Lord as testifying against her in court.

[1:21]  ⁵ sn The divine name translated Sovereign One is שַׁדַּי (shadday, “Shaddai”). See further the note on this term in Ruth 1:20.

[1:21]  ⁶ tn Or “brought disaster upon me”; NIV “brought misfortune (calamity NRSV) upon me”; NLT “has sent such tragedy.”

[2:10]  ⁷ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:10]  ⁸ tn Heb “she fell upon her face and bowed to the ground” (KJV, NASB similar).

[2:10]  ⁹ tn Heb “Why do I find favor in your eyes…?” The expression מָצַא חֵן בְּעֵינֶי (matsa’ khen bÿ’eney, “to find favor in the eyes of [someone]”) is often characterized by the following features: (1) A subordinate or servant is requesting permission for something from a superior (master, owner, king). (2) The granting of the request is not a certainty but dependent on whether or not the superior is pleased with the subordinate to do so. (3) The granting of the request by the superior is an act of kindness or benevolence; however, it sometimes reciprocates loyalty previously shown by the subordinate to the superior (e.g., Gen 30:27; 32:6; 33:8, 10, 15; 34:11; 39:4; 47:25, 29; 50:4; Num 32:5; Deut 24:1; 1 Sam 1:18; 16:22; 20:3, 29; 27:3; 2 Sam 14:22; 16:4; 1 Kgs 11:19; Esth 5:8; 7:3; BDB 336 s.v. חֵן). While Boaz had granted her request for permission to glean in his field, she is amazed at the degree of kindness he had shown – especially since she had done nothing, in her own mind, to merit such a display. However, Boaz explains that she had indeed shown kindness to him indirectly through her devotion to Naomi (v. 11).

[2:10]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “Why do I find favor in your eyes by [you] recognizing me.” The infinitive construct with prefixed לְ (lamed) here indicates manner (“by”).

[2:10]  ¹¹ tn Heb “and I am a foreigner.” The disjunctive clause (note the pattern vav + subject + predicate nominative) here has a circumstantial (i.e., concessive) function (“even though”).

[2:10]  ¹² sn The similarly spelled Hebrew terms נָכַר (nakhar, “to notice”) and נָכְרִי (nokhriy, “foreigner”) in this verse form a homonymic wordplay. This highlights the unexpected nature of the attentiveness and concern Boaz displayed to Ruth.

[3:10]  ¹³ tn Or “blessed” (so NASB, NRSV).

[3:10]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “my daughter.” This form of address is a mild form of endearment, perhaps merely rhetorical. A few English versions omit it entirely (e.g., TEV, CEV). The same expression occurs in v. 11.

[3:10]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “latter [act of] devotion”; NRSV “this last instance of your loyalty.”

[3:10]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “you have made the latter act of devotion better than the former”; NIV “than that which you showed earlier.”

[3:10]  sn Greater than what you did before. Ruth’s former act of devotion was her decision to remain and help Naomi. The latter act of devotion is her decision to marry Boaz to provide a child to carry on her deceased husband’s (and Elimelech’s) line and to provide for Naomi in her old age (see Ruth 4:5, 10, 15).

[3:10]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “by not going after the young men” (NASB similar); TEV “You might have gone looking for a young man.”

[3:10]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “whether poor or rich” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); the more common English idiom reverses the order (“rich or poor”; cf. NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

[3:10]  sn Whether rich or poor. This statement seems to indicate that Ruth could have married anyone. However, only by marrying a גֹּאֵל (go’el, “family guardian”; traditionally “redeemer”) could she carry on her dead husband’s line and make provision for Naomi.