The Book of Ruth

Introduction

The book of Ruth is a Hebrew short story; meaning, it contains events as they happened historically: without poetic license or hyperbole. The ancient copies of Ruth in existence show consistency and few obscurities, contributing to the dependability of its accuracy. The Masoretic Text closely resembles the four manuscripts of Ruth found in the Qumran scrolls. Likewise, there is no disagreement over its canonicity, being categorized by Jewish and Christian authorities as sacred history (history that gives readers insight toward the nature of God). Indeed, Alice Laffey reasons that Ruth’s very placement in the Christian canon between the two books of Judges and 1 Samuel, which are widely accepted as historically true, improves upon the universal idea that Ruth is also true.[1] The historicity and canonicity of Ruth go hand-in-hand, showing that Ruth is as close to the original text as can be agreed upon between biblical scholars.

Ruth’s story takes place during the pre-monarchic time of the judges (Ruth 1:1). Israel had come into the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership, but, by the time of Ruth, Joshua is dead (Josh 24:29), and various judges would soon fill his shoes. However, these Israelite leaders would have temporary success in keeping God’s people aligned with His ways (Judg 2:16-19). This was a turbulent time for Israel as they were sporadically under good leadership and, therefore, failed in obeying God’s laws. They were unwilling to keep His commandments, failed to drive out the inhabitants from Canaan, and despised His protection and mercy. God, in turn, afflicted and oppressed them (Judg 2:2-3, 11-15). In addition to troubles from the Canaanites, the setting of Ruth takes place amidst a famine (Ruth 1:1). Although caused by natural means, the Mosaic covenant leaves little doubt that Israel’s rebellion halted God’s protection upon their crops and resources. Moses assured Israel that if they would obey the Lord, then their crops, livestock, and meals would be blessed (Deut 28:2-5). Thus, disobedience resulted in disaster. The famine in Ruth is evidence of Israel’s failure to diligently heed all of God’s commandments.

The main character of this historical narrative is Naomi. It is through her that God’s grace and restoration are revealed. Her perceived state of hopelessness is highlighted in her self-given name, Mara (Ruth 1:20). It is through two other characters, Ruth and Boaz, that God’s mercy is manifested.

With no surviving males, Elimelech’s family was facing extinction. André LaCocque writes, “This threat is changed through peripety (turn of fortune) into preservation of the name.”[2] The purpose of Ruth is to demonstrate God’s mercy to a family who retained no favorable hope of continuing their lineage. Robert Hubbard explains that this message is supported by observing three details. First, the elders honor Ruth with blessings of continuing the lineage of Rachel, Leah, Perez, Tamar, and Judah (Ruth 4:11-12). Second, Ruth, a foreigner, is accepted into an Israelite community (Ruth 4:10). Third, the conclusion confirms Boaz’s ancestry to David (Ruth 4:21-22).[3]

There are several major themes in Ruth:

Elimelech’s journey to Moab

Elimelech’s son marries a Moabitess

Ruth clings to Naomi

Boaz notices Ruth

Ruth pursues Boaz

Boaz claims rights to Naomi’s property and to marry Ruth

Boaz marries Ruth

Ruth has a son

David is their descendant

1:1-5 Famine Causes Elimelech’s Family to Move to Moab

The situation for Israel is less than favorable as it undergoes a famine. Archaeologists from Tel Aviv University believe that, due to pollen studies recorded in Israel, a drought existed during 1100-1250 BC, likely contributing to this famine.[4] Due to this curse upon the land, the Ephrathite, Elimelech, resorts to displacing his family to the neighboring land of Moab (Ruth 1:1). However, the Moabites would not have been devoid of animosity toward the Israelites. Moab lorded over God’s chosen people for eighteen years, that is, until Ehud assassinated Eglon, their king, and led an assault killing ten thousand Moabite warriors (Judg 3:14, 21, 28-29). Since Boaz’s parents were Salmon and Rahab, the rule of Ehud would be recent history to Elimelech (cf. Josh 6:17; Matt 1:5).

Despite recent friction between the two nations, Elimelech’s sons procure Moabite wives: “Orpah for Chilion, and Ruth for Mahlon” (Ruth 1:4; 4:10).[5] This was an unwise choice given the ruinous experiences in Israel’s past that contributed to its present state of want. God warned the Israelites against marrying the daughters of the Canaanites, as it would cause them to follow other gods, which is precisely what happened (Deut 7:3-4; Judg 3:5-6). Victor Hamilton writes, “Joshua forbids intermarriage with the women of those nations Yahweh left among Israel (Josh 23:12).”[6] The daughters of Moab had already been responsible for luring Israel into worshipping their own gods at Peor (Num 25:1-3). Moab served the god Chemosh (Num 21:29; Judg 11:24). So great was the lure of following the Moabite god, that, because Solomon’s heart turned toward the gods of his wives, “Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abhorrent idol of Moab, on the mountain that is east of Jerusalem” (1 Kgs 11:7, NASB). In between these stories in Numbers and Kings of Israelites following the gods of Moab women, sits the example of Ruth, who, instead, chooses to follow the God of her mother-in-law, Naomi. Hamilton exclaims, “Ruth, a Moabite, later provides a stunning contrast with the Moabite women of Numbers 25.”[7] Although the cause of Elimelech’s and his two sons’ untimely deaths are mysteriously absent, one could argue that abandoning their people, their land, and their God resulted in this ill-fated outcome.

1:6-14 Ruth, Naomi, and Orpah Return to Judah After Their Husbands’ Deaths

Naomi’s reason to return home to Bethlehem is likely to be near her extended family, possibly the only option for her. Along the way, her pity for her daughters-in-law causes her to try to send them back to their own families. With little chance of Naomi having more sons for them to marry, and being ancient Near Eastern women without husbands, Ruth and Orpah would lack security.

1:15-18 Ruth Pledges to Live, Serve the God of, and Die with Naomi

After Naomi commanded Ruth four times to return to her people, Ruth, whose name means “woman companion” makes a stand (Ruth 1:8, 11-12, 15).[8] Her entreaty to remain with her mother-in-law is her longest speech throughout the narrative and ends with the most serious of invitations for God to hold her accountable for her vow (1:17). In the not-to-distant future, this same phrase, “be it ever so severely,” is uttered by Jonathan for Ruth’s great-grandson, David, out of similar love and devotion (1 Sam 20:13, 17, NIV). “The Hebrew was more expressive, ‘Thus may the Lord do,’ probably accompanied by a universally significant gesture of judgment, perhaps akin to drawing one’s finger across one’s neck.”[9] Here exists a contrast in character between Elimelech, who compromised his values as an Israelite, and Ruth, who selflessly pledges her allegiance to Naomi and to her God. Although a Moabitess, Ruth’s love toward a widow is a biblical virtue that God’s people are supposed to demonstrate.

1:19-21 Naomi and Ruth Settle in Bethlehem Where Naomi Calls Herself Mara

Naomi’s appearance in Bethlehem causes something of an uproar. Indeed, it must have been sensational news to have spread to the ears of Boaz and his servant (Ruth 2:6, 11). But Naomi, whose name has “to do with liveliness or delight” returns with no joy, as evident by her command to the women to call her Mara (lit. bitter).[10] It is not unique in the Bible for someone to be given a negative name. Naomi’s new name comes only one book prior to another name that is likewise given in despair. Phinehas’ wife names her son Ichabod because “The Glory has departed from Israel” (1 Sam 4:21). Despite her depressing new name, it is here that Naomi’s profession of faith is most evident: twice she calls the Lord by His name of Yahweh and twice recognizes Him as the Almighty (Shaddai), the one who holds her fate in His hands. Her lament reads, not so much as a complaint, but as an acceptance of the Lord’s judgment on her. Hubbard writes, “Like Jeremiah, Job, and the psalmists, Naomi stands open and honest before God in her suffering.”[11]

1:22 Naomi and Ruth Arrive in Bethlehem as the Barley Harvest Begins

Concluding the chapter is a summary of circumstances with important nuances. First, Naomi and Ruth are alone. Second, the author reminds readers that Ruth is a Moabitess, a foreigner to Israel. Third, the arrival of the women into Bethlehem comes on the heels of the barley harvest. According to Laffey, barley, less nutritious than wheat or grain, “was the last nourishment that could be obtained in a famine.”[12] The original audience of Israelites, reading the book of Ruth during the monarchical era, would have felt the gravity of Naomi’s situation. These three depressing factors lead way into the next scene. Circumstances, not individuals or nations, are understood to be the enemies of this story. However, the timing of events works in Naomi’s and Ruth’s favor since it is through the barley harvest that Ruth and Boaz meet (Ruth 2:8).

2:1-7 Ruth Gleans Among the Sheaves and Catches the Attention of Boaz

Strangely, Boaz is introduced to the readers prior to his encounter with Ruth (Ruth 2:1). The etymology of Boaz’s name remains uncertain. Attempts to link Boaz with the northern pillar on the left side of Solomon’s temple, called “Boaz” are unconvincing (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17).[13] He is simply but proudly described as “a man of great wealth.” Wealth (hayil) is the English word chosen by the NASB, but other literal meanings include “strength, capability, skill, valor.”[14] Hayil is the same word Boaz later uses to describe Ruth as “a woman of excellence” (Ruth 3:11, emphasis added).

Impoverished times may be relenting for Israel, but not for Naomi (Ruth 1:6). With no husband to provide sustenance, she permits Ruth to search for one who might have enough pity for her to glean “leftover grain” from the fields (Ruth 1:2, NIV). Laffey suggests that Ruth “could also be seeking sexual ‘favor’” due to her “sexual marketability.” Laffey provides reasoning for her view, writing, “The themes of food and gleaning, so crucial to the story, are also intimately linked to gender and sexuality.”[15] However, Laffey provides no biblical examples to support this link, and to suggest that Ruth is displaying herself like a prostitute is contrary to her excellent character.

Readers might raise the theological question, Was Ruth’s arrival onto Boaz’s field one of chance or providence? Campbell helpfully observes, “A scene has been set and then just the right thing happens, with little or no lapse of time, and with a distinct hint of wonder at the cause.”[16] In order to solve this riddle, details must be examined. Hubbard is in favor of providential interference, making three points. First, God is already introduced into the story very early (Ruth 1:6). Second, the timing is of such an occurrence would seem divine if readers already knew the end of the story. Third, verse 3 may be using hyperbole as if to suggest that the coincidence of Ruth ending up in Boaz’s field is too great.[17]

However, Jeremy Schipper does not favor divine intervention based on biblical comparisons of the word happened (Ruth 2:3). He argues that this term, meaning chance, appears in only two other places in biblical prose (1 Sam 6:9; 20:26), both of which seem to indicate that the situations truly occurred by chance.[18] Schipper aligns his views with Jennifer Koosed, who defends a literal, non-divine meaning that happened means “chance, accident.” Focusing the word’s use in biblical poetry, evidence for her position comes from Ecclesiastes, where “chance is chance and it comes to human and beasts alike, the righteous and the wicked without distinction.”[19] This non-providential view of verse 3 relies less on one’s own interpretation and more on the meaning of the text and is, therefore, more consistent and reliable than Campbell’s view.

The scene changes from Ruth arriving to the fields to a reflection of Ruth having worked throughout the day. Regarding Boaz’s query about her identity, the servant does not use her name but refers to her as a “young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of Moab” (Ruth 2:6, NASB). This is an example of how she is primarily known throughout “all the city,” as the unwanted foreigner that Naomi brought back from Moab (Ruth 1:19). But what is to be made of verse 7, which reads, “She has been sitting in the house for a little while.”? Hubbard believes that this is the most obscure passage in the entire book; in which the understanding lacks general consensus. “The MT reads literally ‘this [masc.] her sitting/dwelling the house (a) little.’” His suggestion is that the servant is making a nervous or joking statement akin to, “She has practically taken up residence here.”[20] Could Ruth’s reason for working long hours be to glean more grain or to “find favor” in Boaz’s sight? Although the text does not clearly indicate which is her reason for working so long into the day(s), the latter complements her stated reason for going in the first place (Ruth 2:5).

2:8-13 Boaz Welcomes Ruth and Blesses Her for the Loyalty Shown to Naomi

Taking center stage in this conversation, Boaz talks for twice as many verses as Ruth. Whereas he referred to her only moments ago to his servant as a “young woman,” now, addressing her in person, he shows endearment by calling her “my daughter” (Ruth 2:5, 8, NASB). Schipper notes that this is “an appropriate term for an unmarried female member of a household.”[21] This term may also imply that Boaz was closer to Naomi’s age than Ruth’s.

The narrator of Ruth emphasizes the point that Ruth is from Moab, using the terms Moab, Moabite, and Moabitess eight times and quoting the servant using such words twice (Ruth 1:1-2, 4, 6, 22; 2:2, 6, NASB). However, in this dialogue, it is Ruth, not Boaz, who raises the issue of her nationality by confessing, “I am a foreigner” (Ruth 2:10, NASB). More than admitting her lineage, Ruth challenges the man showing her mercy to provide a reason for his kindness. Boaz, like their future great-grandson, David, appears to take uncommon value in people against the standards of the world. Far from being disgusted that Ruth is a foreign widow, Boaz appears to maintain an appreciation for her lawful care of the other widow, Naomi (Ruth 2:20, cf. Exod 22:22; Deut 10:18; 14:29). Laffey suggests that, through this conversation, courtship may be implied.[22] However, the context supports no such motive at their initial meeting and, furthermore, interjecting a betrothal into the conversation would divert the attention away from the developing nature of Boaz redeeming Ruth in the name of the Lord. Just as Naomi’s faith in the Almighty was previously established (Ruth 1:20-21), now the story confirms Boaz’s faith in “the Lord, the God of Israel” (Ruth 2:12, NASB).

2:14-16 Boaz Gives Ruth Food and Provides her with Extra Grain

Another fulfillment of finding favor in Boaz’s eyes is manifested through Ruth’s inclusion with the reapers for a meal. Suspecting derision from the servants toward Ruth (possibly regarding her nationality, poverty, or widowhood), Boaz specifically forbids ill treatment of her and, instead, commands special treatment to ensure she gleans plenty. Foreseeing that the servants may give without being cheerful givers, he even forbids them from rebuking her for gathering extra (Ruth 2:16; cf. 2 Cor 9:7).

2:17-23 Ruth Continues to Glean Until the Harvest Concludes

Having finished gleaning the field that day, Ruth returns home with an ephah (22 liters), of barley, “an unusually large amount of barley for one day’s gleaning.”[23] The inquisitiveness of Naomi invokes an interesting Q–and–A session, starting with the field in which Ruth worked, but immediately turning focus onto the owner of the field. Upon hearing the name Boaz, Ruth blesses him in the Lord and further declares that God “has not withdrawn His kindness from the living and from the dead” (Ruth 2:20, NASB). By dead, she could either mean their deceased loved ones or, metaphorically, herself.[24] Note the change from her former way of thinking about God (Ruth 1:20-21). Curiously, Ruth omits Boaz’s high praise of herself (Ruth 2:11:12) and discloses only the details of their conversation to Naomi as they pertained to her work (Ruth 2:21). Was Ruth ashamed to relay the compliments of Boaz so soon after the death of her husband, Naomi’s son? If that is the case, Naomi cannot help but to press the advantage of enticing Boaz soon, for Ruth’s own interest, as well as “so that others do not assault [her] in another field” (Ruth 2:22, NASB).

3:1-5 Naomi Instructs Ruth to Uncover Boaz’s feet and Lie Down

Hope is the thrilling feeling behind every romance story. Between Guinevere and Lancelot, Juliet and Romeo, Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy, and here lies the exciting scenario in which the love develops between Ruth and Boaz. Campbell writes, “This is the only episode in which Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz have the stage to themselves;”[25] thus, readers prepare themselves for the direction of the narrative to gain focus.

Naomi transposes her own values upon Ruth, believing that security through marriage is attainable for her (Ruth 3:1). Naomi shows no hope throughout the narrative of remarrying, so she appears to want better for her daughter-in-law. One must wonder if God is orchestrating events in this scene. Hubbard believes that this moment is a “providentially given opportunity.”[26] Is this likely when neither Naomi nor Ruth even speak of the Lord throughout this chapter? The text is devoid of further explanation discouraging readers to question the theological significance further.

The instructions from mother-in-law to daughter-in-law are taught by some scholars to be of a shocking nature. Schipper believes that Ruth is told to “undress at his feet and lie down.”[27] Laffey explains that Naomi’s command to “uncover his feet” was “more likely” to mean expose his genitals.[28] Neither of these explanations are consistent with the context, and understandably so. The gesture is meant to show interest in Boaz; however, to force an understanding that Ruth was to undress either him or herself is an attempt to make the story mean something beyond what is written. Undressing herself would not ensure that Boaz would awake. However, causing him subtle discomfort unabating would likely awaken him. Hubbard reasonably argues, “To uncover Boaz’s feet exposed them to the night air’s increasing chill.”[29] Furthermore, Naomi’s intentions were for Ruth to do nothing other than uncover his feet. To undress either party would not be consistent with waiting to “tell you what you should do” (Ruth 3:4, NASB). Josephus further supports this by stating that Naomi “thought it might be for their advantage that he should discourse with the girl. Accordingly she sent the damsel to sleep at his feet.”[30] To imply that Naomi is telling Ruth to undress either partner is contrary to the contextual evidence. Nothing more should be made of this action than Naomi’s instructions for Ruth to innocently afford to have a private conversation with Boaz (while looking and smelling her best) to find out his intentions regarding her.

3:6-13 Boaz Awakes to Find Ruth and Pledges to Redeem Her

What startles Boaz awake excites readers as they come to the climax of the story. Discovering his feet uncovered and a person is lying there, Boaz inquires of the mysterious figure’s identity. This is not to imply that he was unfamiliar with Ruth’s face or silhouette; rather, the setting was so dark as to make any physical distinction of her impossible to recognize.

What follows is Ruth’s deviation from Naomi’s advice. It is at this point that Naomi’s instructions to let Boaz “tell you what you should do” should have been heeded (Ruth 3:4). Either out of wisdom or desperation, Ruth gives Boaz instructions, saying, “So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative” (Ruth 3:9). There is little doubt that Ruth is offering herself to him for marriage. The idiom of “covering” Ruth is also used to represent God’s covenant (marriage) to Israel (Ezek 16:8). The implication here is that she is ready and willing to consummate the marriage at that very moment on the threshing floor. Concerning the general practice of covering a woman, Hubbard writes, “The gesture no doubt symbolized the man’s protection of her and probably his readiness for sexual consummation as well.”[31] This offer does not go over the way Ruth hopes; possibly why Naomi guided her to do as Boaz instructs. Boaz lies not with her, but, showing his chivalry and assuaging her trepidation, praises her “kindness” and tells her not to fear (Ruth 3:10-11, NASB). He assures her that she will be redeemed by either the rightful kinsman or himself. It is a mark of Boaz’s worth that he does not take her to be his wife when she so willingly offers herself to him in what might be described as a vulnerable situation. Boaz observes the lawful right of the true kinsman-redeemer.

Boaz relates the opinion, not just of himself, but of “all my people in the city,” that Ruth is “a woman of excellence” (Ruth 3:11, NSAB). Is Ruth’s character the attractive quality to Boaz? The text leaves little room for any other consideration (cf. Prov 12:4; 31:10). The excellence of Ruth may present her as his equal in either a social or spiritual sense. Nothing regarding Ruth’s appearance or beauty needs to be inferred in this description, as it is not included in the text and would appear to have no relevance to the story. Boaz’s real attraction is precisely on her character (Ruth 3:11). Boaz makes the standard oath, “as the Lord lives” (Ruth 3:13, NASB), to assure Ruth that he will redeem her if the rightful kinsman-redeemer abstains from his responsibility. This same format of oath is falsely sworn by Saul, who swears that he will not put David to death. In contrast, David uses the same phrase to assure Jonathan that, because of Saul, “there is just a step between me and death” (1 Sam 19:6; 20:3, NASB). Therefore, the just and the unjust swear by this oath. Boaz’s commitment to follow through on his oath will prove him just.

Much is made on Boaz’s final statement of their midnight discourse when he states, “Lie down until morning” (Ruth 3:13, NASB). It is claimed by some that the threshing floor became the site of matrimonial engagement by the couple lying down together. Does Boaz’s command to “lie down” imply that he and Ruth had intercourse? Certainly not. After Ruth asks Boaz to cover her with his garment, he does not oblige her request, providing lawful reasons. It is inconsistent with the dialogue for the couple to share a physically intimate evening, unrecorded by the author, after just discussing the reasons for not consummating a marriage. Hubbard explains, “Righteous man that he was, Boaz would settle things through proper means and leave the outcome to God.”[32] Furthermore, other examples of lying with a partner add such descriptions as “with him” or “with me” (cf. Gen 19:34; 2 Sam 13:11). Without such an addition, the term “lie down” less ambiguously means “to lodge.”

3:14-18 Ruth Returns to Naomi and Awaits Boaz’s Settlement

The last defense against the possibility of nocturnal intercourse between Boaz and Ruth is in the fact that “she lay at his feet until morning” (Ruth 3:14, NASB, emphasis added). Josephus provides his readers with the following explanation of Ruth’s early departure: “It was but prudent to avoid any reproach that might arise on that account, especially when there had been nothing done that was ill.”[33] Although some scholars insist on reading between the lines and refuse to rule out the possibility of a sexual occurrence, no expressions of sexual desire are explicitly present throughout the narrative. Interjecting such scenes of uncharacteristic behavior distract readers from a contextual understanding of the story.

Continuing his responsibility of providing for Ruth and her mother-in-law, Boaz loads up her “shawl” with “six measures of barley” (Ruth 3:15, NASB). No unit of measurement is specified (lit. six of barley), but it cannot be assumed that these are ephahs since she would then be burdened with a weight ranging between 175 and 285 pounds (Ruth 3:17).

Just as the chapter began with Naomi briefing Ruth on her mission, it ends with a debriefing. “How did it go, my daughter,” is literally translated into, “Who are you, my daughter?” (Ruth 3:16, NASB). Her query is not to question her identity, like when Boaz asked, “Who are you?” (Ruth 3:9, NASB). Had that been the case, Naomi would not have added “my daughter.” How should Ruth answer the question? Will her response be: I am a foreigner, a Moabitess, a widow, or a wife? Naomi had to endure Ruth’s explanation: an answer more complicated than simply addressing herself as a Mrs. Boaz. After finding out of Boaz’s commitment to Ruth, Naomi learns what the readers already know: there is a catch. A relative closer than Boaz may claim Ruth as his wife.

It is at this point that a contrast is revealed in Ruth’s character. Rewinding to Ruth 2, readers witnessed Ruth receiving high praise from Boaz. However, when questioned from Naomi about her day, she only speaks of work-related topics, omitting details of Boaz’s praise and blessing of her. Now, in chapter 3, Ruth is forthcoming with her mother-in-law, telling her “all that the man had done for her” (Ruth 3:16, NASB). Almost as an afterthought, Ruth includes the details of the six measures of barley (Ruth 3:17). It is not the goal of this reflection to tell readers the significance of this change but highlight that there is a change in Ruth, perhaps with her self-image, with her relationship with Naomi, or in her increased confidence in marrying Boaz. This change may not have gone unnoticed by Naomi since she concludes this episode by comforting Ruth that the matter will be resolved “today” (Ruth 3:18, NASB).

4:1-6 The Kinsman-Redeemer Relinquishes His Rights of Redemption to Boaz

While Naomi is enquiring after Ruth’s experience, Boaz is enquiring after the intentions of her closest relative (Ruth 4:3-6). The unnamed relative is willing to purchase Elimelech’s land from Naomi until he discovers that there is responsibility involved: the required levirate marriage to Ruth. Deuteronomy 25:5-6 explains that it is the duty of the brother of the deceased to marry his widow should she fail to bear a son. This provides security for the widow and prevents her from marrying someone outside of the family. The firstborn son of this new union receives the dead husband’s name to ensure that the deceased’s name will not be “blotted out from Israel.” In the case of Elimelech’s nearest relative, the deal is suddenly less enticing because he would be responsible for fathering a son with Ruth, who would become the heir of the land he is now purchasing. Josephus records Boaz as warning him, “Thou must not remember the laws by halves, but do everything according to them.”[34] Seeing this as a detriment to his inheritance, as well as to his current wife and children, the closest relative changes his mind (Ruth 4:6).

4:7-12 The Transaction is Legalized, and the Elders Bless Boaz

The kinsman-redeemer must go through a process whereby his sandal is removed, the widow spits in his face in the presence of the elders, and he is known as “The house of him whose sandal was removed” (Deut 25:7-10, NASB). Although the story omits any reference to Ruth’s or Naomi’s presence and completion of this process, Josephus does not; writing, “Boaz called the senate to witness, and bid the woman to loose his shoe and spit in his face, according to the law.”[35] Josephus’ additional information is likely to be true since Boaz’s character, thus far, has left no portion of the law unmet. Readers can see the happy ending coming to fruition for Ruth, Boaz, and even Naomi. Boaz announces his lawful purchase of Elimelech’s land, the survival of his name, and the redemption of Ruth. Through a pair of similes referring to certain patriarchs and matriarchs of Genesis, Ruth is blessed as one who will build the future of Judah through her womb. All that remains in the story is the favorable conclusion and an epilogue, which will serve as evidence of the blessing’s fulfilment.

4:13-17 Ruth and Boaz Wed and Give Birth to Obed

Boaz marries Ruth. This complex arrangement resulting from the relinquished rights of Naomi’s nearest relative is among several biblical stories where marriage comes fraught with complications: Jacob and Rachel, David and Bathsheba, Hosea and Gomer (Gen 29:30; 2 Sam 11:26-27; Hos 1:2). In contrast, this union between Boaz and Ruth has no sex with sisters, adultery, or harlots. Ruth’s matrimony is a benefit for everyone.

Interestingly, the Lord is not said to have been explicitly involved throughout the narrative. The book of Ruth reads as if the characters use their own judgment but associate the outcomes with either the blessings or curses of God (Ruth 1:9, 13, 17, 20-21; 2:4, 12, 20; 3:13; 4:11-12, 14-15). The sole exception is when God intervenes after the marriage: “And the Lord enabled her to conceive” (Ruth 4:13, emphasis added). This means that Yahweh literally gave her the ability of conception. The question becomes, Does God give all conceptions or is this a rare case of divine intervention for Ruth? The answer is yes to both. The Lord grants all conceptions, for all things come into existence through Christ and nothing comes into existence apart from Him (John 1:3). However, Ruth 4:13 is one of only three times the word conception (hērāyôn) occurs throughout the Bible. The other two references are less mistakeably God’s divine intervention (Gen 3:16; Hos 9:11), making Ruth’s conception more likely to be caused by divine causation.

The Elders’ blessings of Ruth are followed at least nine months later by blessings to Naomi because her husband’s name will live on through her grandson. Unthinkable today, Ruth names not her own firstborn child, but “the neighbor women gave him a name” (Ruth 4:17, NASB): an event that is unique in the OT. How fitting that Ruth’s son, Obed, means worshipper and worker,[36] or as Josephus defines, “servant.”[37] Is this not precisely what Ruth was: a worshipper of Naomi’s God (Ruth 1:16), a worker in the field (Ruth 2:7), and a servant to Boaz (Ruth 3:9)? It is Naomi who is praised by the neighboring women, Naomi who nurses the baby, and Naomi who is said to have a son born to her (Ruth 4:14-17). One wonders if Naomi had legal rights over Ruth’s son. This is less likely to be the case since there is no scriptural precedence and may simply show contrast with Naomi’s previous embittered self-image (Ruth 1:20-21).

The importance of this story for its chief character, Naomi, can be observed through reviewing the last quote of each chapter. The first three are spoken by her and the final one is spoken about her as follows:

Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. 21 I went out full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has witnessed against me and the Almighty has afflicted me? (Ruth 1:20-21).

It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maids, so that others do not fall upon you in another field (Ruth 2:22).
Wait, my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out; for the man will not rest until he has settled it today (Ruth 3:18).
A son has been born to Naomi! (Ruth 4:17).

The story can be summarized using these few verses. Naomi starts off at rock bottom, but an opportunity comes for her daughter-in-law to work for a reputable man. At some point later, Naomi urges Ruth to show interest in Boaz. The hopelessness is dissolving through each chapter until, at last, Naomi is a proud grandmother.

4:18-22 The Genealogy from Perez to David

This epilogue provides the critical lineage from Perez (son of Judah) to David. Many prophecies connecting Judah, David, and the Messiah are supported by such genealogies (cf. 2 Sam 2:4; Jer 33:15; Luke 1:69; Rev 5:5). Since David was already listed as a descendent (Ruth 4:17), it is unclear why the original author would add a second lineage immediately following. Schipper writes, “The general consensus is that this final genealogy is a later addition.”[38] Various explanations exists regarding the number of ten generations listed, many of which find arbitrary importance in David being tenth in a succession, but without clear contextual significance. The story may simply include the detailed lineage to infer that Boaz, who is the accomplished father of Obed, is more than that, since he joins, as father, the most important of biblical lineages.

Conclusion: Four Applications

First, the deaths of Naomi’s husband and two sons without male heirs to succeed them is a situation that means to the original readers exactly what Naomi believes, that God had forsaken her (Ruth 1:3, 5). To add to the disparity of the situation, she returns to Bethlehem with a Moabitess, a woman, who represents destruction and perversion. However, like in the book of Job, it appears that if God was involved, He had a larger plan involving redemption. The Lord made a conditional covenant with the Hebrews to listen to them should they return to Him (Deut 4:30). Likewise, Paul teaches that believers in Christ who “come to know God, or rather to be known by God” likewise participate in His redemptive plan (Gal 4:9, NASB). Thus, God does not afflict people necessarily out of wrath. Believers are to trust Him just as He commanded the Israelites (Deut 4:1).

Second, Ruth 2 covers poverty, an issue with which any Israelite family could sympathize. Although the law gave the less fortunate the ability to glean from the corners of the field and to pick up what was dropped (Lev 19:9; 23:22; Deut 24:19), the reality was that the owner of the fields chose whether or not to extend those mercies. Hence, Ruth is hopeful to find favor with a field owner by being allowed to glean (Ruth 2:2). The New Testament bears witness to the same principle of generosity when Paul writes, “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7, NASB). It is not enough for professors-of-faith to regimentally give only when commanded, but, instead, to have generous hearts (Deut 15:10).

Third, Naomi was the one to suffer through her own life choices but was restored through the choices of another, Ruth. Naomi’s intention was to obtain security for Ruth, a humbling prospect since she admittedly could not provide for her daughter-in-law (Ruth 1:11-13; 3:1). Hebrew Mothers, then, could identify with the shame that comes with failing one’s family. The only recompense Naomi could gain would be in securing a better future for Ruth. This value is represented by Paul when he writes, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8, NASB). Naomi’s future became intertwined with Ruth’s, which was to her advantage since Ruth became known as “a woman of excellence” (Ruth 3:11). The Lord does not necessarily redeem his people by restoring what He takes away, but He redeems for His own name’s sake. He prevented not even the death of His Son, Jesus, demonstrating that believers should trust in God for the restoration of true life in Christ and not in what they have lost for His sake.

Lastly, the legal barrier preventing Boaz from immediately possessing Ruth as wife is a necessary one to ensure that Israel cares more for widows than self-interests. Reading of Elimelech’s nearest relative refusing to wed Ruth doubtless causes mixed feelings of shame toward the relative and joy at the alternative (Ruth 4:6). Believers today also struggle between compete trust in God and their own desires, akin to Paul’s desires between flesh and spirit (Gal 5:16-17). God rewarding Boaz and Ruth for their faithfulness goes beyond giving them a son. Josephus concludes his version of this story by identifying the theological application, writing, “God, who without difficulty, can raise those that are of ordinary parentage to dignity and splendor, to which he advanced David, though he were born of such mean[39] parents.”[40]

Notes

[1] Alice L. Laffey and Mahri Leonard-Fleckman, Ruth (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017), xlvi-xlvii. [2] André LaCocque, Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel's Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 88. [3] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 39, 41. [4] Finkelstein, Israel and Dafna Langgut “Dry Climate in the Middle Bronze I and Its Impact on Patterns in the Levant and Beyond: New Pollen Evidence.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73, no. 2 (October 2014): 219-234. [5] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 5.9.1. [6] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 192.

[7] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 350. [8]Campbell, Ruth: A New Translation, 56.

[9] Anders, Max and W. Gary Phillips. Holman Old Testament Commentary: Judges, Ruth. Nashville: B&H, 2004. ProQuest eBook. [10] Campbell, Ruth: A New Translation, 84. [11] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 127. [12] Laffey and Leonard-Fleckman, Ruth, 53. [13] Jeremy Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 113. [14] James Strong, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Rev. by John R. Kohlenberger III, James A. Swanson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 1387. [15] Laffey and Leonard-Fleckman, Ruth, 62, 65. [16] Campbell, Ruth: A New Translation, 93. [17] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 141. [18] Schipper, Ruth, 117, 128. [19] Jennifer L. Koosed, Gleaning Ruth: A Biblical Heroine and Her (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2011), 79. [20] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 150-1. [21] Schipper, Ruth, 129. [22] Laffey and Leonard-Fleckman, Ruth, 84. [23] NIV Archaeological Study Bible, 389. [24] Laffey and Leonard-Fleckman, Ruth, 91. [25] Campbell, Ruth: A New Translation, 130. [26] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 199. [27] Schipper, Ruth, 143. [28] Laffey and Leonard-Fleckman, Ruth, 91. [29]Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 204. [30]Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 5.9.3. [31] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 212.

[32] Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 219. [33] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 5.9.3. [34] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 5.9.4. [35] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 5.9.4.