THE BOOK OF RUTH contains a wonderful love story, which, while set in the period of the judges, contrasts greatly with the general chaos and disobedience of that period. In a refreshing way the book provides an antithesis to the incessantly negative message about the conditions in Israel during that time by underscoring God’s tremendous blessing in the midst of great familial distress.
Authorship and Date of Composition
THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD attributes authorship of the book to Samuel (b. B. Bat. 14b–15a), but the suggestion is doubtful.1 The book, in fact, does not identify the author either explicitly or implicitly. Quite simply, the author of the book of Ruth is unknown. Recently, A. J. Bledstein has argued that the book of Ruth is the work of a female author, namely, Tamar, the daughter of David.2 But this is problematic internally3 as well as culturally.4
The date of the book’s composition is, in many ways, a more difficult matter. Much of the argument concerning the book’s date revolves around linguistic evaluations, which are not always objective and are often difficult to assess.5 Moreover, the corpus of extrabiblical Hebrew, while thankfully growing through archaeological activities, is still small. Thus, possible contemporaneous documents of the same type are not really available for comparison. Nevertheless, the most recent evidence seems to suggest a late preexilic to early postexilic date.6
Canonical Status and Position
WHILE THE CANONICITY of Ruth has been almost unanimously accepted, the book’s position in the canon has varied widely. Its canonical place divides broadly along two great traditional lines: the order generally found in the Hebrew Bible’s textual traditions and the order found in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
In the vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts, Ruth is one of the five festal scrolls (Megilloth), which were part of the third division of the Hebrew Bible, the Ketubim or Writings. The grouping of these five scrolls or books was for functional, liturgical reasons.
But even so, in the Megilloth two different liturgical orders were used. The first grouping was a liturgical arrangement that followed a preconceived chronological/historical sequence:
Ruth (pertaining to David)
Song of Songs (Solomon’s younger years)
Ecclesiastes (Solomon’s older years)
Lamentations (exilic period)
Esther (postexilic/Persian period)
Generally in this tradition, the Megilloth follows Psalms, Job, and Proverbs. This tradition is the historically earlier one (rooted in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition of the ninth-tenth centuries A.D.). This order seems to be not only chronological but also thematic. In this arrangement, Ruth follows directly on the heels of Proverbs 31:10–31 (which focuses on ʾēšet ḥayil, “a woman of strength of character”). Ruth is called an ʾēšet ḥayil (“a woman of strength of character”) in Ruth 3:11.7 Obviously, this order has probably developed from thematic associations.
The second grouping was a liturgical arrangement that followed the order of the calendar of the festive year:
Song of Songs (Passover: Nisan = March–April)
Ruth (Pentecost: Sivan = May–June)
Lamentations (Ninth of Ab: Ab = August–September)
Ecclesiastes (Tabernacles: Tishri = September–October)
Esther (Purim: Adar = February–March)
In this tradition, the Megilloth follows Psalms, Proverbs, Job. This tradition is the historically later liturgical ordering.
Regardless of whether the arrangement is calendaric or historic/chronological/thematic, the liturgical ordering in the Hebrew Bible tradition is relatively late. It could not have arisen until after the period in which it became customary to read these five books at the major festivals of the Jewish year—a custom that arose during the sixth to the tenth centuries A.D.
A third ordering within the Hebrew Bible tradition is observed in the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b). The tradition that it quotes appears to come from the first or second centuries A.D. Here the book of Ruth is placed at the beginning of the Writings, immediately before the book of Psalms. The Megilloth are not grouped together in this arrangement.8
The other major textual tradition is that of the LXX, in which Ruth is placed in the Former Prophets, immediately after Judges. Such a placement is understandable for at least two reasons. (1) The primary reason is that Ruth 1:1 (“In the days when the judges ruled [judged]”) provides a natural linkage with the book of Judges.
(2) There appears to be contrastive thematic connections with the final story of Judges. In Judges 19–21, everything is done wrongly (see commentary on these chapters). Old institutions are thoroughly misapplied. Dismembering his concubine, a Levite calls the tribes to muster, acting as a self-appointed judge. The result is a civil war that nearly wipes out one of the tribes, the Benjamites. In order to keep the letter of their sworn oath not to supply wives for the remnant of the Benjamites—whose idea was that?—they put Jabesh Gilead to the sword and round up their virgin daughters; that proving insufficient, they allow the Benjamites to thoroughly disrupt the annual festival of Yahweh at Shiloh. In the whole miserable performance, the nation has obviously lost track of Yahweh completely!
Striking in this connection, perhaps, is the designation given to the Benjamites, who have fallen in 20:44, 46; after all sorts of military designations throughout the narrative, here they are ʾanšē ḥāyil (valiant fighters), recalling the description of Boaz (Ruth 2:1) and Ruth (Ruth 3:11). It is ironic that the victims of all this chaotic action are given the only accolades. One more thing: In the Israel of which Judges 19–21 tells, the only person who will give the Levite and his concubine hospitality in Gibeah is a sojourner (19:16).
The contrast with the Ruth story is striking. Older commentators often observed that the placement of the Ruth story after Judges is not due simply to their chronological connection, but also to the contrast between the two portrayals. That contrast, however, really pertains to Judges 19–21 only. Here are covenant, custom, and institutions gone awry, contrasted with a scene in which things go as they should, people make the right decisions, and Yahweh is anything but lost.9
Much debate has centered on which of these two traditions is older and original. It seems that they both arose among different elements of the Jewish community and existed side by side until the fourth century A.D. While there is no definitive evidence to discern which of the two has priority, it seems clear that the earliest Jewish traditions treated the book as an entity. Thus, it is difficult to see why the book would have been “demoted” from the Prophets to the Writings, while a “promotion” in the opposite direction is more easily understood.10
Unity
ALTHOUGH SOME SCHOLARS disagree, there is a general consensus that the story—at least through 4:17—exhibits an evident unity. Whether the extended genealogy of 4:18–22 is an inherent part of the book is another matter. Many scholars regard it as a later addition to an already finished story; to them, the “original” story had nothing to do with David and his lineage but was only later adapted for this purpose. The argument for this centers, in part, on the book’s date (i.e., if the bulk of the book is dated to a preexilic context, then the genealogy is a later addition). If, however, the book comes from the time period implied above, there is practically no reason for the genealogy to be considered late.11
Recently, numerous scholars have argued for integrative connections of 4:18–22 with the rest of the book.12 It seems clear that the genealogical section balances the narrative “family history” of the introduction (1:1–5). It also serves to link the short genealogy of 4:17b with the mention of Perez in 4:12 and confirms the blessing uttered in 4:11b–12. The genealogy functions as a coda, a story conclusion that completes the narrative discourse by relating it to the reader’s own time in a variety of ways.13 Moreover, it presents the story’s characters receiving their just rewards, in being part of the long, blessed line of David. Finally, the genealogy honors Boaz, not only by including him but also by placing him in the seventh position.
Some have argued that the genealogy clashes with the story itself. In the story, Obed, who is the offspring of the levirate marriage, should be counted in the genealogical line of Elimelech-Mahlon; but in the genealogy, Obed is counted in the line of Boaz. However, the evidence gleaned from recent study of genealogies in the ancient Near East and the Bible demonstrates that genealogies change in structure and content when their function changes (see the section on Genealogy, below). Thus, in order to express David’s right to exercise kingship, the descent has been traced through Boaz.14
The Concept of Ḥesed
THE CONCEPT OF ḥesed is important to understanding the book of Ruth since it is used to describe both secular and divine-human relationships. Unfortunately, it is a Hebrew word that no one English word can begin to convey accurately. Being expressive of relationships, the term connotes altogether the notions of covenantal loyalty, faithfulness, kindness, goodness, mercy, love, and compassion.15 While paired with a wide range of other Hebrew words, no single word can replace it in its relationship to the others, and thus none can provide an exact synonym. A summary of a number of major points concerning ḥesed is helpful:
• Ḥesed springs from and is based on relationship, usually some sort of prior relationship. Because of this, it is inherently tied to the concept of covenant (berît)16 and is expressive of the deep and abiding loyalty and commitment between the parties of that covenant.
• While ḥesed contains an emotive quality that highlights issues of motive,17 it is fundamentally an action. Ḥesed recognizes and acts to relieve an urgent essential need on the part of the recipient. It is not just something nice for someone to do gratuitously or because it expresses “special favor.” When it is a specific act, the essential need it meets is normally “deliverance from dire straits”; when it is a series of acts, it comes out as ongoing protection “from similar dangers.”18 Ḥesed refers to an act performed for the benefit of a person in real and desperate need, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between the parties concerned.19
• It is performed for a situationally weaker person by a situationally more powerful person. This is most clearly illustrated in God’s acts of ḥesed for his people.
• It is a voluntary act of extraordinary mercy or generosity, a “going beyond the call of duty.”20 Because it is performed by a situationally more powerful person who has options, ḥesed is something such a person can decide not to do. No sanction can really force it. However, because some sort of prior relationship is clearly or assumedly the background for ḥesed-acts, side-by-side with the option not to act is a clear-cut responsibility to act.21
Yahweh is the one who models ḥesed (over two-thirds of the word’s total number of occurrences are God’s ḥesed to humans). Clark argues that it is “a characteristic of God rather than human beings; it is rooted in the divine nature.”22 It is not only the basis on which the divine-human relationship is established, but the means and enablement for its continuance. Ḥesed precedes, and indeed gives rise to, the covenant (berît), which then provides additional assurance that God’s promise will not fail. While the righteous may call for help based on a relationship in good order, there can also be appeal for help based not on any human merit, but rather on the faithfulness of God to help the undeserving to bring forgiveness and restoration. In this, there is a connection with God’s raḥamîm (maternal compassion). The manner of caring, committing, initiating, and responding that God demonstrates in the concept of “doing ḥesed” becomes the definition of responsible human behavior. The ḥesed of Yahweh that is experienced and known in the community comes to define what human ḥesed can be, ought to be, and sometimes is.23
In human contexts, ḥesed is loving commitment within a relationship, most often, though not exclusively, within the setting of the family or clan. It represents the social bonds of loyalty toward others within the community of God’s people. Ḥesed is mutual: Those who are shown ḥesed are expected, not by law but by social and moral convention, to reciprocate.24 This has particular implications for the social life of God’s people where ḥesed, expressed in right conduct toward one another, is expected both because of the mutual relationship established through membership of the covenant community and as a proper response to the ḥesed shown by God. Because ḥesed is ultimately voluntary, it is not a legal obligation, though its failure is taken seriously.25
The book of Ruth employs ḥesed on both the divine and human levels. The word occurs three times in the book. In Ruth 1:8, there is a clear reference to Yahweh’s ḥesed (the passage also contains a reference to human ḥesed). The Lord’s ḥesed is the factor that eventually leads to the successful remarriage of Naomi’s daughter-in-law, so that it cannot help but be recognized in the provision of a “kinsman-redeemer” (gōʾēl) for Ruth (cf. 4:14). Moreover, while not stated, Yahweh’s act of “giving” a child in Ruth 4 should certainly be understood as an act of ḥesed.
Interestingly, the only human actors who are explicitly said to have exercised ḥesed are Orpah (once) and Ruth (twice) (1:8; 3:10). Thus, ironically, Moabites (in particular Ruth) are the people who most clearly manifest ḥesed in this book.
Boaz’s acts of ḥesed are only seen by way of allusions. In Ruth 2:20 the text is ambiguous as to whether Boaz’s or Yahweh’s ḥesed is in view. The NIV translates: “ ‘The LORD bless him!’ Naomi said to her daughter-in-law. ‘He has not stopped showing his kindness [ḥesed] to the living and the dead.’ ” This translation seems to understand the reference to be to Boaz (though not necessarily). The NRSV, however, translates: “Then Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he by the LORD, whose kindness [ḥesed] has not forsaken the living or the dead!’ ” This translation clearly understands the reference to be to Yahweh.26
Could this be a case of deliberate ambiguity?27 Whatever the case, throughout the book, ḥesed is the underlying factor in various acts of loyalty and mercy. It is the issue of ḥesed that serves as the basis for the discussion between Boaz and Ruth as negotiations are made (3:9–13).
Thus, the ḥesed that humans show to one another is among the most fitting means God can use to display his own ḥesed. This is certainly a contrast to the book of Judges, where loyalty within the bounds of the covenant is scarce.
Genre and Purpose
SCHOLARLY OPINION CONCERNING the genre and purpose of the book of Ruth is diverse. Genre classifications attached to Ruth include such labels as “folktale,” “novella,” “short story,” and “edifying short story.”28 The determination of the genres of Old Testament narrative is a notoriously difficult task. This is especially true when there are no clear ancient parallels (as in the case of Ruth).29 Modern genre categories are not adequate and can be invariably misleading. Nevertheless, perhaps most helpful is Bush’s designation of Ruth as an edifying short story, since it gets at the didactic or instructional aspects of the book.30
The book’s purpose is likewise difficult to assess. Part of the difficulty is in how much weight of consideration should be given to the genealogy of Ruth 4:18–22. On a number of levels, different purposes are discernible. On one didactic level, the short story seems to present Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz as models for emulation.31 On another, its theme of the continuity of God’s people in the land demonstrates intentional links with the patriarchal narratives as well as with the postexilic experiences of the Israelites.32 On a completely different level (esp. based on the coda, the final part of the book), the book functions as a legitimization of the Davidic monarchy, an apology for his kingship.33
The Structure of the Book of Ruth
THE BOOK OF RUTH is comprised of six units and a coda. The first and last units function as a prologue and epilogue respectively. These evince numerous thematic parallels. The remaining four units form four balanced acts that communicate the story. Acts 1 and 4 have two scenes each and demonstrate remarkable parallels. Acts 2 and 3 have three scenes each, structured along similar lines. The turning point of the book occurs exactly midway through it (2:20; see Outline).
The Prologue (1:1–5) provides the setting and predicament. A Judahite family’s males have died in Moab so that the main character of the book, Naomi, is without a male to care for her.
In the acts that follow Naomi’s emptiness is developed. Act 1 narrates her return (1:6–22). It has two scenes: Scene 1, in which Naomi and her daughters-in-law are on the road to Judah (1:6–19a), and Scene 2, in which Naomi and Ruth arrive at Bethlehem (1:19b–22).
Act 2 narrates the developments between Ruth and Boaz in the fields (2:1–23). It is divided into three scenes: Scene 1, in which Ruth gleans in a field that happens to belong to Boaz, Naomi’s relative (2:1–3); Scene 2, in which Ruth and Boaz meet on the harvest field and Boaz is exceedingly generous (2:4–17a); and Scene 3, in which Naomi evaluates the meeting: Boaz is one of their kinsman-redeemers (2:17b–23).
Act 3 narrates further developments in the relationship of Ruth and Boaz at the threshing floor (3:1–18). Like Act 2, it is divided into three scenes: Scene 1, in which Naomi discloses her plan for Ruth and Boaz (3:1–5); Scene 2, in which Ruth executes Naomi’s plan and Boaz offers to be the kinsman-redeemer (3:6–15); and Scene 3, in which Naomi evaluates the encounter: Boaz will act (3:16–18).
Act 4 narrates Boaz’s arrangements to marry Ruth (4:1–12). It has two scenes: Scene 1, in which Boaz confronts the unnamed kinsman (4:1–8); and Scene 2, in which Boaz acquires the right to redeem Naomi and Ruth (4:9–12).
The Epilogue (4:13–17) narrates the conclusion and resolution to the main character Naomi: A son is born to Ruth and Boaz, which restores Naomi to life and fullness.
Finally, there is a coda to the story—a genealogy that traces the ten generations from Perez to David (4:18–22; see section on Genealogy, below).
It is abundantly clear that the writer of the book of Ruth uses space, time, and circumstance to build the central message of the book—Naomi’s restoration from emptiness to fullness through the selfless acts of loyal love (ḥesed) by Ruth and Boaz. This takes place first in connection with Naomi’s return from Moab to the Promised Land and to Bethlehem (“house of food”). It then progresses with the harvest season, when the fullness of the land is gathered in. All aspects of the story keep the reader’s attention focused on the central issue. Consideration of these and other literary devices enhances one’s understanding of the book.
Contrast is also used to good effect: pleasant (the meaning of “Naomi”) and bitter (1:20), full and empty (1:21), and the living and the dead (2:20). This use of contrast is most strikingly developed between two of the main characters, Ruth and Boaz: The one is a young, foreign, destitute widow, while the other is a middle-aged, well-to-do Israelite securely established in his home community. For each, there is a corresponding character whose actions highlight, by contrast, her or his selfless acts: Ruth versus Orpah, Boaz versus the unnamed kinsman-redeemer.
One significant aspect to the book is the issue of initiative. After the disasters of the prologue and the lamentful bitter emptiness expressed in Act 1, each of the main characters seizes the initiative. In Act 2, it is Ruth who seizes the initiative, since Naomi is engrossed in self-absorbing bitterness and despair. She goes out to glean, to meet the needs of the two destitute widows. In Act 3, it is Naomi who seizes the initiative. She concocts a plan to meet the needs of her daughter-in-law. In Act 4, Boaz seizes the initiative. He secures the rights of redemption for the field and for the marriage of Ruth. In all three cases, the initiator is acting out of or motivated by issues of ḥesed; and in all three cases, unexpected positive results occur.
Some scholars contend that the coda of the book of Ruth (i.e., the genealogy of 4:18–22) is the structural counterpart of 1:1–5. Certainly there are indications that the two sections might mirror each other thematically. For example, as the book opened with names associated with tragedy, so it closes with names associated with triumph (“diminishment” versus “fullness” of progeny).34 Similarly, Porten observes how the book opens with the judges and Elimelech (“My God is King”) and closes with God’s appointed king, David.35
Consequently, the coda anticipates a future beyond the story’s immediate time period. The genealogy has been trimmed unmistakably to place the story’s main male character, Boaz, in the favored seventh slot, thereby conveying a moral of particular interest to the historically minded Hebrews: Common people achieve uncommon ends when they act unselfishly toward each other.36
Background Issues
The Gōʾēl and the Levirate Marriage
A “KINSMAN-REDEEMER” (GŌʾĒL) was the nearest adult male blood relative who served as an advocate for any vulnerable and/or unfortunate clan member in order to correct any disruption to clan wholeness, well-being, or šālôm (especially through the redemption or restoration of property, persons, or lineage).37 The “clan” (mišpāḥâ) or “linear descent group”38 seems to have been the focus of the law of the gōʾēl (Lev. 25:48–49).39 Apparently, this clan “wholeness” encompassed both living and deceased members of the clan or kinship group.40
Since there is no similar institution in modern Western societies, there is no word in English remotely equivalent. Moreover, while similar social functionaries are attested in other tribal cultures, the terminology associated with the gōʾēl is almost exclusively Hebrew, and its basic meaning of “redeem, buy back, recover, restore” is derived from its use in law and custom of the Israelite clans.41
There are a number of specific sociolegal contexts in which the kinsman-redeemer (gōʾēl) takes upon himself the duties of geʾullâ (redemption, recovery):42
• to redeem (i.e., reclaim through monetary payment) property once owned by an impoverished clan relative but sold out of economic necessity (Lev. 25:24–34; Jer. 32:1–15)
• to redeem impoverished clan relatives who were forced to sell themselves into servitude to a resident alien or another Israelite (Lev. 25:47–55)43
• to act as the blood redeemer (gōʾēl haddām—lit., kinsman redeemer of the blood) to avenge the killing of a clan relative, restoring clan wholeness (Num. 35:12, 19–27; Deut. 19:6, 12; Josh. 20:2–3, 5, 9)
• to act as recipient of money paid as restitution for a wrong committed against a clan relative now deceased, hence restoring clan wholeness (Num. 5:8)
• to assist a clan relative in a lawsuit so that justice is done (Job 19:25; Ps. 119:154; Prov. 23:11; Jer. 50:34; Lam. 3:58—note that the Lord is the gōʾēl in some of these passages)
• to redeem the wife of the deceased44 (i.e., acquire legal right) in order to “raise up the name of the deceased upon his property” by acquiring “the wife of the deceased” (see comments below on the law of the levirate marriage in Deut. 25:5–10).45 This restores clan wholeness
• to redeem or restore a clan widow facing old age alone without anyone to care for her (Ruth 4:14–15)
The word ʾāḥ (brother) is used in some of these contexts with the nuance of “clan relative” (i.e., any relative of “the linear descent group” [mišpāḥâ]). In all seven instances, mišpāḥâ wholeness or restoration is accomplished by the actions of the gōʾēl.
Important to the understanding of Ruth is the realization that the gōʾēl, while having a responsibility to perform “redemption/restoration” (geʾullâ), was not obligated to do so. The fact that there was an apparent hierarchy of response (Lev. 25:48–49) indicates that volition, choice, determination, and so on were involved.46 Thus the gōʾēl must be willing to perform geʾullâ. This is a crucial aspect to the role or function of the gōʾēl, which is often overlooked. The same aspect of volition is present in the levirate marriage (see below).
In Leviticus 25, the activity of the gōʾēl is portrayed as a follow-up to Yahweh’s redemption of the Israelites from Egypt.47 The actions of the “Great Kinsman-redeemer” in the Exodus from Egypt is the basis for the gōʾēl’s actions. Thus the activity of the gōʾēl perpetuates the first redemption from Egyptian slavery and also, at the same time, provides a redemption from unending servitude to later pharaohs within Israel’s own ranks. Thus the human gōʾēl carries out the redemption policy of the “Great Gōʾēl,” Yahweh himself. The human gōʾēl personally represents Yahweh in such transactions.48
Consequently, it is not difficult to see how the New Testament could interpret Christ’s death in terms of the gōʾēl. Jesus’ function as the ultimate gōʾēl is highlighted by the fact that he is not ashamed to call us “brothers” (Heb. 2:11; see comments on 4:1–12).
The levirate marriage is found in three passages49: (1) Deuteronomy 25:5–10 (legal statements), (2) Genesis 38 (Judah and Tamar), and (3) Ruth 4 (Boaz and Ruth). “The purpose of the levirate was to prevent extinction of the deceased’s title to his landed inheritance.”50 Through it, family or clan “wholeness” was restored. Thus it was clearly a legal fiction, insofar as the offspring from the levirate belonged fictionally to the deceased line. Westbrook argues: “It is clear, therefore, that the levirate is a great sacrifice on the part of the brother, for he might just let the deceased remain without issue and take over the inheritance for himself and his progeny.”51 Though the offspring from the levirate belonged fictionally to the deceased’s line, the offspring took their name from the levir (as Gen. 38 and Ruth 4 manifest).
In light of this, the reluctance of the levir in Deuteronomy 25 and Genesis 38 are understandable. However, in Genesis 38, had Onan refused outright, he would have gained nothing, since either his father or younger brother could have performed the levirate and thus produced an heir to Er. Moreover, as the firstborn, Er was entitled to a double share, as would be his fictional son, so Onan’s potential loss was even greater. Thus, Onan devised a subterfuge or trick. He ostensibly undertook the responsibility given to him but took care that no heir could possibly result from the union. He had intercourse with Tamar but made sure that he did not impregnate her. By doing this (i.e., performing the duty in form but not in fact), he hoped to gain for himself his dead brother’s inheritance (along with his own). Greed for property was thus Onan’s motivation. Hence, God judged him. But amazingly, God’s grace at the end of the narrative is even the greater when we realize that Tamar gives birth to twins—conveniently and ironically—one for the “name” of each dead brother!
While a simple conclusion might be that it is the deceased’s memory that is to be preserved and that the levirate achieves this purpose by attributing offspring to him, in Genesis 38 and Ruth 4 the offspring of the levirate union is subsequently referred to as the issue of the levir (Judah and Boaz respectively) and not of the deceased (Er and Mahlon). This realization demonstrates clearly that the memory of the deceased is not the primary purpose of the levirate marriage. Rather, it is property inheritance that is at the root of the levirate marriage.52
In the case of Ruth, where the land has already been alienated, redemption of it “triggers” the levirate duty.53 Since Boaz is not an heir, he must redeem the land—as well as perform the levirate marriage. In Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 25, the levirs are already heirs and so there is no need for land redemption.
In Ruth, the narrator is also careful to mention that the land belonged to Elimelech. Elimelech (or his wife Naomi for him) sold the land and went to Moab with his two sons. All three died in Moab. Thus the two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, never came to own the family property at all. The redeemer of the land would receive his right to purchase from Elimelech, and the two sons would again drop out of the picture (since they had never actually inherited it).54
There is no point in discussing whether Naomi could have owned the land or not, as it states plainly in 4:3 that Elimelech owned the land and Naomi merely sold it. If a woman did not have the capacity to own land, it does not mean that she could not act as agent for her husband to acquire (or alienate) on his behalf (see Prov. 31:16).
I am not sure it is necessary to distinguish between a levirate marriage and a gōʾēl marriage, as Hubbard does.55 The term “levirate” is a Latin imposition on a Hebrew custom that may have been more extended in a clan or linear descent group (i.e., the mišpāḥâ) than just brothers in a nuclear family. In fact, the law of the gōʾēl is clearly linked to the mišpāḥâ. Westbrook’s observation that in Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 25 the individuals are already heirs of the property whereas Boaz in Ruth 4 is not an heir seems important. The “redemption” of the land “triggers,” so to speak, the levirate obligation.
Genealogy
RECENT STUDIES HAVE clarified the function and role of genealogies in the tribal societies of the ancient Near East and the Bible. Linear genealogies56 functioned to legitimate claims to position, authority, or power in various political and societal contexts.57 Moreover, they also served didactic or instructional purposes. They display two features: depth (i.e., the number of names in the list) and fluidity (flexibility in which names are included).
Normally, there was a tendency to limit the maximum length of a written genealogy to five to ten generations.58 This is the case with many biblical linear genealogies (cf. Gen. 4:17–24; 5:1–32; 11:10–26; 25:12–15; 1 Sam. 9:1). Consequently, it is not uncommon to find Near Eastern genealogies being modified by the addition or omission of names.59 Though there are many reasons for fluidity, the most common reason results from the loss of names as new generations are added. The names at the end are the well-known recent generations, and the names at the beginning are the revered, honored founders, whose prestige and power the genealogy is often intended to invoke. Hence, loss of names, often termed “telescoping” or “gapping,” usually occurs in the middle of the list.60
In its depth (ten members), the genealogy of Ruth 4:18–22 is paralleled by other biblical linear genealogies as well as by the extant ancient Near Eastern linear genealogies. Ruth 4:18–22 also manifests the “telescoping” characteristic of such genealogies.61 At the beginning of the list, for example, Perez and Hezron are the firmly established founding ancestors of the tribe of Judah (cf. Gen. 46:12; Num. 26:21). At the end of the list, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David represent the well-known recent generations. Furthermore, Boaz and Obed are germane to the story, and the sequence Jesse-David is well known elsewhere (e.g., 1 Sam. 16:1–23; 17:12; 22:9; 25:10; 1 Kings 12:16). The sequence Amminadab-Nahshon is fixed in the Mosaic traditions. It is perhaps, then, significant that Ram and Salmon, which exhibit the widest variation in form and spelling in all the versional attestations (and for Salmon in the MT as well), are the two names that link, on the one hand, the patriarchal generations to those of the Mosaic era (i.e., Ram), and, on the other hand, the names of the Mosaic era to those of the recent generations.
Since genealogies functioned to legitimate claims to position, authority, or power in various political and societal contexts, a persuasive case can be made that 4:18–22, rather than being an insipid anticlimax, brings closure to the whole by underlining the significance of the story’s resolution: Naomi’s return to life and fullness through the birth of Obed. That resolution led two generations later to David.