Annotations for Ruth

1:1 The text gives no evidence that God directed Elimelek (Heb., lit. “my God is king”) to leave Bethlehem (contrast Abraham’s exodus from his homeland, Ge 12:1). Fertility of soil and abundance in harvest have never been ultimate security against famine. Neither is changing location necessarily God’s way of dealing with a crisis (see Ro 8:37–39). Elimelek’s departure from Bethlehem (Heb., lit. “house of bread”) did not keep him and his two sons from dying in a foreign land, leaving his wife Naomi perhaps more destitute and isolated than if she had remained among friends and relatives.

1:5 The plight of a widow in Biblical days was especially precarious. Young widows were allowed lodging in their father’s home (Ge 38:11; see also 2Ki 4; Ps 68; Jer 29, Widowhood), but an older widow whose parents were dead was dependent upon her children for support. Seemingly, God had snatched away her family’s usefulness and productivity.

1:8 God’s dealings with his children are described theologically as “loving” (Heb. chesed; see Ex 20:5–6, note; 34:5–7; Ru 3:10). No ingredient is more essential in an intimate relationship because such an attitude precludes bitterness, retaliation, negative criticism, or other destructive behavior. Chesed is love joined to loyalty and integrated with mutual commitment (see Jer 31:3); it is action and feeling combined. What is received is returned. The mixture of divine will and human activity joins the warmth of God’s fellowship with the security of his faithfulness.

1:9 Rest is more than the cessation of work and the absence of anxiety. Certainly this “rest” implied much more than a marriage ceremony, and included security, provision and blessing (see Jos 21:44). The same word is translated “a home” in Ruth 3:1.

1:13 For anyone who accepts full sovereignty of a just and merciful God, the existence of evil by divine permission (theodicy) is a natural dilemma. Naomi implied an indictment of unfaithfulness against God, whose relationship to his people had always been based squarely upon the presupposition of his faithfulness. Naomi determined, because of her personal losses, that God had turned away from her, and she decided to reciprocate by turning away from him. She asked to be called “Mara” (Heb., lit. “bitter”; see v. 20). Nevertheless, a glimmer of hope existed for Naomi because she, by her reference to the Lord (Heb. Yahweh), placed these tragic experiences of losing her husband, sons, and earthly belongings in the setting of the covenant promise. This use of the Lord’s personal covenant name reminded Naomi and her daughters-in-law of God’s ultimate faithfulness.

1:20–21 The Almighty has made my life very bitter. What a natural reaction to blame God for any misfortune (see Heb 12, Bitterness). Naomi was conscious of her own wrong-doing and viewed her suffering as God’s punishment for her own sins (See Ru 1:13,20–21). On the other hand, God views affliction as a necessary part of his sovereign and loving purpose (Ecc 7:14; 2Co 12:7–10; see also Isa 42; 1Pe 4, Suffering). A believer going through the fire can produce a beautiful and pleasant aroma to the Lord (Nu 29:6; 2Co 2:15).

In contrast to the verse 1 reference to the devastation of famine, Naomi testified, “I went away full,” realizing that her husband and sons were worth far more than land and wealth (a restoration of her own sense of values). She had been genuinely blessed in Bethlehem, even in the midst of famine and poverty. Naomi chose to assign the blame for her tragedies to the Lord. Contrasting her own weakness, she referred to his power by calling him Shaddai (Heb.), here translated “Almighty” and understood by some to mean “all-sufficiency.” God must be trusted “for better or worse” (see Pr 24:10).

2:1 Boaz was rich and influential (v. 1), a landowner (v. 3), a kind and considerate employer (v. 4), a gentleman who showed respect and courtesy to Ruth and others (vv. 8–9), a sensitive leader who complimented Ruth with genuine praise (v. 12), a generous benefactor (v. 14; Ru 3:15), a spiritual leader (Ru 2:12), a man who chose to be a channel for happiness (vv. 15–16) and a man of high moral character (Ru 3:7–13; see also Ge 2, Masculinity and Godly Manhood).

2:3 The bringing together of Ruth and Boaz cannot be attributed to chance, especially when God begins with provision of food in famine (Ru 1:6) and ends with the gift of a child to an empty womb (Ru 4:13). “As it turned out” simply means that no human intent was involved; the fact that Ruth chose the field of her close relative in which to glean was unplanned and unforeseen on her part.

2:7 The ancient custom of gleaning as codified in the law gave the widow, or even a resident alien, the right to gather grain anywhere she pleased (Lev 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19). In OT law, a landowner was instructed not to reap completely the corners of his fields, leaving the gleanings for the strangers and the poor. God’s welfare plan has always made provision for the poor (Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; see Luke 9, The Homeless; 14, Poverty), but the needy, as they were able, also willingly worked for what they received (2Th 3:10). This generous provision in the law is understood to be an act of grace freely given and not a mandate for personal rights forcibly demanded. Those who receive are to accept whatever care God provides, including food and shelter, with an humble spirit and grateful heart (Ru 2:17–19; see Eph 5:20). Those who can share from abundance are to express spiritual concern, exemplifying the character of God that prompts such generosity to others (Ru 2:11–12; see Mt 10:8; Lk 6:38).

2:20 Two important Hebrew concepts were motivated by commitment to family and a determination to cooperate in continuing the family line: the function of the go’el (Heb., lit. “guardian-redeemer” or “close relative”; See Ru 3:1–18) and the practice of levirate marriage (see also Dt 25:5–10). Only in the book of Ruth are these two concepts linked. The “close relative” or “guardian-redeemer” functioned in behalf of another person and his property within the family circle in times of crisis. These are his functions:

1) He redeems property by purchasing what has been lost and returning it to the one who was forced to sell (Lev 25:25–28).

2) He redeems persons, that is, a relative who was forced to sell himself into slavery (Lev 25:47–55).

3) He redeems blood; that is, he avenges the death of a relative who has been murdered (Nu 35:16–21,31).

Because Boaz (Heb., lit. “in him is strength”) was a relative of Elimelek, he was eligible to be the go’el or “guardian-redeemer” with the right and responsibility to redeem the forfeited inheritance of the family so that the property of the dead man remained within the family. This responsibility usually included care for the widow (see Dt 25:5–10). Boaz functioned as Ruth’s “guardian-redeemer” and in so doing prefigured Christ as the ultimate go’el. Three requirements of the go’el have been fulfilled in Christ: He must be related by blood (Php 2:5–8); he must be able to pay the price (1Pe 1:18–19); and he must be willing to redeem (Mt 20:28).

3:3–9 Naomi’s daring plan. Love culminating in a desire for the highest good in the person loved, even to the point of self-sacrifice, is illustrated in Naomi. Sensing that Boaz and Ruth were already genuinely attracted to one another and understanding well the law of the “guardian-redeemer,” Naomi devised a strategy based upon knowledge of levirate marriage (see Dt 25:5–10). By this practice a widow became the wife of her husband’s brother or another close relative in order to produce a child who would inherit her first husband’s estate and preserve his name. Some scholars debate whether levirate marriage is fully applicable in the story of Ruth. In any case, the producing of a male child to continue the “name” of the deceased was at stake in Ruth. Ruth’s loyalty to the tradition of her husband’s people and her desire to care for Naomi by marrying someone within the family was a tribute to her commitment to the family of her deceased husband. Without any effort to trap Boaz or put him in a compromising situation, Ruth made a straightforward, yet delicate and beautiful, appeal to inspire Boaz to do the duty of a “close relative.” The “guardian” duty was one performed, not for personal gain but as an act of pure love. The go’el was motivated to marry not by the force of law but by the influence of custom prompted by the intent expressed in Deuteronomy 25.

Ruth’s request, “Spread the corner of your garment over me,” is a metaphor suggesting her need for protection just as young birds would run under the wings of their mothers to escape birds of prey. Yahweh’s “wing” is Boaz’s “wing”! A Jewish husband covers his bride with the end of his prayer shawl (Heb. tallith) as a symbolic gesture that she is under his protection (see Eze 16:8). Ruth’s humble request to Boaz is for his protection as a “close relative.” Any argument for sexual consummation goes beyond what the text states and runs counter to the characterization of Ruth and Boaz as a virtuous couple who would not have yielded to the temptation to consummate their relationship before the proper time. The risk to spoil God’s plan is certainly there. The Hebrew text uses words that are commonly used for sexual relationships (“lie down” and “uncover,” vv. 4,7), implying that Ruth and Boaz had opportunity but rightly refused to disobey God’s law. Compare and contrast Ruth, who did the honorable thing, with Tamar, who played the harlot (see Ge 38, Tamar). Ruth trusted God; Tamar took matters into her own hands.

4:7 The nearest kinsman could refuse to act as go’el (See Ru 2:20, note), thereby losing the right to the inheritance and perhaps even experiencing the indignity of the contemptuous spitting in the face. In this case, the next kinsman could then come forward. Since treading upon the soil signified taking possession of fixed property, taking off the sandal and giving it to another would symbolize the transfer of property or possession.

4:11 This wedding prayer suggests a blessing which might have customarily been recited on the occasion of betrothals in Bethlehem. Ruth was like Rachel in being blessed with children after a long period of barrenness.

4:15 To be described as better than seven sons, in a culture in which sons were so highly esteemed, is a supreme compliment. This commendation of Ruth as an extraordinary woman also bears testimony to the loving ministries she performed in Naomi’s behalf above what would have been expected of any daughter or son. The relationship between mother and daughter-in-law is described by many as the most troublesome in the human family. Yet the lives of Ruth and Naomi portray an example of the joy found when divine principles are followed even in that most difficult relationship. The result is loving commitment, mutual comfort and consistent edification (see chart, In-Law or In-Love). Decisions to follow God’s way are always honored and blessed by God. Ruth determined to respond to Naomi in a loving and godly way. Her decision to care for the aged, impoverished, and embittered Naomi is rewarded both by the security of a wealthy and devoted husband and by the joy and blessing of motherhood in bearing a son, who, in turn, gave her a place in the ancestry of the Messiah. The commitment between these two is a pattern for mutual benefit and a doorway for the blessings of heaven to be showered upon them both (Ru 1:7–8,16–17).

4:17 The book ends with an outline of the lineage of the Messiah as a reminder of redemption. The focus falls upon the vital link in which the Hebrew (Boaz) and the Gentile (Ruth) unite to share in the ancestry of David, through whom would come Jesus Christ.