Ruth, Job, and the Problem of Suffering
Good Religion Requires Accompaniment More Than Answers
The Book of Ruth is the most intertextual book of the Bible. What does that mean? It means that word for word, line for line, it contains the greatest density of cross-references to other Biblical verses. Nearly every verse in Ruth can be cross-referenced with another Biblical verse. This is one of the reasons that scholars identify the book as chronologically late relative to other Biblical texts.
Ruth is, in other words, one of the earliest examples we have of Midrash. It is a form of Biblical commentary, and self-consciously so. That it is also a Biblical book means that it is a book about how to read and interpret the Bible, or how to re-read and re-interpret the Bible. It is a book that tells us that the act of interpretation is part and parcel of the Bible itself.
One of the great and surprising intertexts of Ruth is Job. In a nutshell, Naomi is contrasted to Job and Ruth to Job’s friends. Both Job and Naomi suffer, and both become pariahs as a result. But that is where their stories diverge. For Naomi finds companionship in Ruth, while Job’s friends taunt him with theologies—explanations of his suffering—that blame him and isolate him further. Ruth tells Naomi, “Wherever you go, I will go.” Job’s “friends,” meanwhile, cling fast to their priors, unable to accompany their companion.
Read allegorically, the Book of Ruth makes for an even more surprising read. With Naomi in the place of God, and Ruth in the place of the people—through the transitive property: God and Job switch roles. Now, it is God who suffers and humanity which must console God. Instead of the Job question, “Why do the righteous suffer?” The Ruth question becomes “Why does God suffer?” But the non-answer is the same: “We don’t know and we can’t know, but our task is not to answer, but to accompany.”
How do I know Naomi is a stand-in for God? Because the covenantal language used by Ruth when she declares her commitment to Naomi is traditionally read as a stand-in for God and the Israelites. (The other obvious shocker of the parallel is that Ruth is a Moabite, a historical enemy of the Israelites). Ruth’s language is still used in the conversion script.
One way to sum up the Book of Ruth is that it makes the essence of Judaism and/or of Biblical religion the antidote to the failure of Job’s friends. There is one simple standard by which you can know if your religion is good: does it allow us to accompany those in pain or does it get in the way?
How might the form of Ruth relate to this message? Perhaps in the following way: Don’t take the Bible at face value. Scan it intertextually, look for ironies and reversals, and multiple layers, and you’ll find the resources you need to be more like Ruth and less like Job’s friends. And another possibility: just as you shouldn’t judge a verse or book at first blush, but must do the work of uncovering layers, so you can’t judge people by first appearances. People don’t always deserve their suffering (or their happiness), and so we should resist the urge to insert causation where there is only correlation.