The Right Environment: Hospitality in Judges and Ruth
Some years ago, my wife and I had the privilege of traveling through Israel, just the two of us. During our trip, we experienced the delightful, unexpected pleasure of being received into the homes of both Jews and Palestinians. Each instance began with a conversation with a stranger, after which the stranger invited us into his home for a meal. During our visit, our Orthodox Jewish host explained his intense distrust of Palestinians; our new Muslim Palestinian friend spoke of the problems caused by the Jewish State of Israel. Nevertheless, while the two parties shared mutual distrust, both exhibited admirable hospitality. Neither host felt that there was anything remarkable about inviting total strangers to dinner, but my wife and I, as American Christians, were deeply humbled. What will it take for Christians to develop this kind of attention to the stranger?
Conditions Which Make Hospitality Feasible
This article looks at two Old Testament books, Judges and Ruth, each of which contains notable episodes of hospitable behavior. These books are set in the same time period, that of early Israel prior to the establishment of the monarchy. Hospitality clearly “works” in Ruth, but does not fare so well in Judges. Why the difference, and how will it help us to practice hospitality in the 21st century? We begin by carefully looking at Ruth, then move on to Judges 19.
The book of Ruth is a delightful, positive story. Yet when we read the narrative closely, questions about motive may arise. For example, Ruth’s words to Naomi in 1:16b-17 are often held up as a fine example of loyalty: “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die—there will I be buried. May the LORD do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" Yet her narrative does not reveal Ruth’s inner emotions. As a widow in a time of famine, Ruth may have had no means of survival other than to follow Naomi. Naomi urges Ruth in 1:15 to return to her own people, but is this a feasible option? The narrator does not tell us directly but does hint that Naomi is more focused on her own distress than on a realistic assessment of Ruth’s options. So while Ruth seems determined to remain with Naomi, we have no way of knowing precisely why.
Shortly thereafter, we meet the other major character in the book of Ruth, the wealthy landowner Boaz. Upon hearing of Ruth’s presence on his property, he speaks kindly to her, and sees to her welfare (Ruth 2:8-16). He is even generous, providing her a lunch of wine and roasted grain, then instructing his workers to be sure to leave ears of grain for Ruth to pick up. Why is Boaz so giving with Ruth? He claims that he is impressed with Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi. Perhaps he is naturally magnanimous; perhaps he happens to be in a good mood that day. Maybe as an older man, wise in the ways of the world, Boaz feels the call of a certain fatherly protection over an innocent young woman. Or alternatively, he senses a chance, consciously or unconsciously, to win the heart of a pretty, younger woman (3:10 may lean in this direction!).
We do not know exactly what the characters are feeling, but do we know that the story has a happy ending. Whatever the characters’ motivations, things work out grandly: Boaz and Ruth marry, and their son Obed, King David’s eventual grandfather, is the pride and joy of Grandma Naomi.
The book of Judges also contains several instances of exemplary hospitality. The practice in Judges of giving shelter to a stranger happens with such regularity that scholars tend to conclude that hospitality was a recognized expectation in pre-monarchical Israel.
Judges 19, which gives an account of an anonymous Levite and his “concubine,” contains two exceptional examples of superior hosting. In verse19:2, the concubine gets mad at her husband, and runs off to her father in Bethlehem. The Levite follows her to his father-in-law’s home, where he is received joyfully. The two men feast for three days, and when the Levite prepares to leave on day four, his father-in-law persuades him to stay for a sumptuous breakfast that eventually turns into dinner! The Levite is persuaded to stay one more night, after which follows another grand breakfast—at which point, the Levite finally breaks away from his father-in-law’s company.
The Levite then goes to the nearby city of Gibeah. Gibeah was less than ten miles from Bethlehem, so the Levite had not gone far. Judges19:15-20 tell us that as he is preparing to spend the night in the “open square of the city,” an old man approaches, offering him shelter for the night. So, a second time, the Levite enjoys exemplary hospitality, including food, drink, and rest, this time from a stranger. And even more, when the Levite is threatened in verse 19:22 by the local townspeople, the Levite’s host offers up his own daughter for the pleasure of the townspeople, in order to protect his guest.
The results of Judges 19 lead to one of the saddest episodes of the Old Testament. Despite the repeated demonstrations of true hospitality, the Levite and his host must send the Levite’s concubine out to the townsfolk, where she is gang-raped the entire night. The next morning, the Levite finds her dead on the doorstep. He cuts her body into twelve pieces, and sends them throughout Israel. The Israelites then do “justice” by taking revenge on the townspeople, via military assault.
Judges and Ruth are set in the same time period, and exhibit similar ideas about hospitality, but the hospitality shown in the books lead to very different results. The key difference between the two books is not in the characters’ willingness to show kindness to guests. In fact, it is possible to argue that the care for guests is more demonstrably genuine in Judges than it is in Ruth. I’ve offered possible questions about Boaz’ motives: his behavior appears kind, but we obviously cannot discern his real motivations. In Judges, however, we have much more difficulty questioning the reasons behind the generosity of the Levite’s father-in-law and the “old man” of Gibeah.
Therefore it is not different approaches to hospitality that lead to the different results in each book. Instead, to evaluate the results of hospitality, we can look to the social environment in which hospitality takes place. In Ruth, matters are settled through law. Ruth has freedom of movement: she is able to go about her business in the fields of Boaz, without fear of molestation. Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz subject themselves to the legal customs of their time. Legal process then affirms the loyalty of Ruth and the generosity of Boaz. At the end of the book, we still cannot be certain of the true motives of Ruth and Boaz–and yet, their motives do not matter. They have exhibited hospitable behavior, and they enjoy good results.
The Irony of Judges for Modern Readers
Society in Judges, however, tends to operate through the principle “might makes right.” The “judges” of this book do very little of what we think of as “judging.” They instead are military figures, “raised up” by God to oppose non-Israelite forces. The judges are, therefore, men of violence. In Judges 17-21, the judges disappear, but the violence remains, leaving Israel an essentially lawless society. Judges 18:1 and 19:1 describe it this way: “there was no king in Israel.” Verses17:6 and 21:25 extend this with the phrase, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
Absent some lead figure of law, whether prophet or king, Israel in Judges is ruled by group military strength, thus thwarting individual efforts to perform acts of kindness. Although the Levite’s father-in-law and the “old man” of Gibeah practice genuine hospitality, their generous behavior comes to a bad end. Law is not in force in Judges 19: given the rape and murder of the Levite’s concubine, we cannot imagine a scenario in which a woman like Ruth could safely glean in the fields. The lack of a community system of law leads inevitably to endless military conflict and destruction.
Hospitality “works” when we set up a suitable environment. In a place where disputes are settled by legal process, rather than “might makes right,” hospitable behavior helps to restore people to a place of wholeness, and to foster understanding and trust. Communities understanding of what constitutes “good” behavior, along with just and fair systems for resolving disputes, create an environment where the benefits of charitable behavior can have their wonderful effect.
