MEANWHILE BOAZ WENT up to the town gate and sat there. When the kinsman-redeemer he had mentioned came along, Boaz said, “Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So he went over and sat down.
2Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, “Sit here,” and they did so. 3Then he said to the kinsman-redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech. 4I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. But if you will not, tell me, so I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, and I am next in line.”
“I will redeem it,” he said.
5Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, you acquire the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”
6At this, the kinsman-redeemer said, “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.”
7(Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.)
8So the kinsman-redeemer said to Boaz, “Buy it yourself.” And he removed his sandal.
9Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. 10I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses!”
11Then the elders and all those at the gate said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12Through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.”
13So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. Then he went to her, and the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a kinsman-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! 15He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
16Then Naomi took the child, laid him in her lap and cared for him. 17The women living there said, “Naomi has a son.” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
18This, then, is the family line of Perez:
Perez was the father of Hezron,
19Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab,
20Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
21Salmon the father of Boaz,
Boaz the father of Obed,
Obed the father of Jesse,
and Jesse the father of David.
Original Meaning
THIS FINAL CHAPTER of Ruth is composed of three elements: Act 4 (4:1–12), in which Boaz takes the initiative to act as kinsman-redeemer; an epilogue (4:13–17), which balances the prologue as it shows how Naomi’s emptiness has been resolved with fullness; and a coda (4:18–22), which gives a genealogy from Perez to David.
Act 4: Boaz Arranges to Marry Ruth (4:1–12)
THIS ACT IS amazingly parallel to Act 1 (esp. Scene 1, 1:7–19a); Boaz here has a dialogue with the nearer kinsman-redeemer and then with the legal assembly. In the course of this dialogue, the nearer redeemer withdraws. This is like the dialogue between Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah, in the course of which Orpah departs for home. Boaz’s acquisition of the right to marry Ruth in 4:9–12 resolves the question of a home and husband for her. This, of course, was the very problem on which the dialogue between Naomi and the two young women centered and which Ruth appeared to forfeit when she committed her life to Naomi and Yahweh.
Act 4 is comprised of two scenes. In Scene 1 (4:1–8), Boaz confronts an unnamed kinsman-redeemer (gōʾēl) who has the legal first right of redemption. In Scene 2 (4:9–12), Boaz acquires the right to redeem the field of Elimelech with its implications concerning Ruth and Naomi.
The opening line intimates the development of this Act—the decisive event at the gate (4:1). The closing sentence acts as transition to what follows in the epilogue (4:12). The section emphasizes the responsibilities inherent in ties of kinship, in particular to the levirate marriage (i.e., the future). Just as Orpah served as a foil to heighten the character of Ruth in 1:7–19a, so the unnamed kinsman-redeemer serves as a foil to heighten the character of Boaz in 4:1–12. Finally, the initiative for action shifts to Boaz in this act. Without his positive, purposeful, and skillful maneuvering, the story will not see its favorable resolution.
Scene 1. Boaz confronts the unnamed kinsman (4:1–8). Scene 1 divides into two clearly discernible parts: Boaz’s convening of the legal assembly (4:1–2) and Boaz’s negotiations with the nearer redeemer (4:3–8). The first part sets the stage for the dialogues of negotiation in the second part. After Ruth gave Naomi her report (3:16–18), Boaz, true to his words, “went up to the town gate and sat there” (obviously with the intent of resolving the matter concerning Ruth).
The NIV’s translation of 4:1a (“When the kinsman-redeemer he had mentioned came along”) completely obscures the impact of the Hebrew grammatical construction, which is better translated here as “and just then” (wehinnēh + subj. + part.). It is meant to convey surprise. Campbell states:
Here, as there [2:4], the scene is set (Boaz taking his place at the gate), where upon at just the right moment along comes just the right person. Commentators who point out that virtually every male in town was bound to go out through the gate at some time during the morning on the way to work in the field are missing the impact of the Hebrew construction, which at least in Gen 24:15 and in Ruth conveys a hint of God’s working behind the scenes.1
Thus this is not simply coincidence but the hidden hand of Yahweh at work.
Boaz calls to this individual to come over and sit down (“Come over here, my friend [pelōnî ʾalmōnî], and sit down”). Again, the NIV translation misses the impact of the sentence. The phrase pelōnî ʾalmōnî is an example of a wordplay termed farrago.2 The best translation is “So-and-So.” The same expression is used in 1 Samuel 21:2 and 2 Kings 6:8, where the narrator does not wish to give the name of the place, so that the translation “such and such a place” is appropriate.3
This phrase originates with the narrator, not with Boaz. Boaz would surely know the name of a fellow citizen in a small town like Bethlehem, not to mention a relative who is the gōʾēl just prior to him. Consequently, the narrator is underscoring the namelessness of this man in order to create a less than favorable impression and is prompting the audience to suspect a pejorative purpose in the choice of the expression.4 Therefore, to translate the expression as “my friend” is to obscure the narrator’s purposeful omission of the man’s name.
Having called the man over, Boaz now procures ten elders of the city. This contrasts markedly with the way in which Boaz summoned the nearer relative. While he summoned this man over at the moment he passed through the gate, the text strongly suggests that Boaz does not simply wait in the gate with the other redeemer until ten elders of the city chance to pass through on their way to the fields. Instead, he actively seeks these individuals out so that the legal proceedings can start. As Bush puts it:
. . . it would seem that the specific statement that Boaz procured ten of the town’s elders is intended to stress the care that he took to ensure that a duly constituted legal forum would be present to notarize and legitimate the civil proceedings he wished to set in motion.5
The second part of Scene 1 records Boaz’s negotiations with the nearer gōʾēl (4:3–8). Having convened the legal assembly, he immediately opens the negotiation with a statement to this relative of his (4:3). It introduces a totally new item to the story. Without a single prior word on the subject, the narrator has Boaz inform the nearer redeemer that “Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother6 Elimelech.” The understanding of this statement and the rest of Act 4 are difficult, and there are uncertainties on practically every level. Time and space do not permit an explanation of all the intricacies of the text.7 What appears to be the main thrust of the passage will be presented.
First of all, it is clear that the text is not describing an outright sale of land by Naomi. Instead, this refers to a transaction in which only the right of use of the land is being transferred for a stipulated value (paid completely at the beginning of the deal) for a stipulated period of time (Lev. 25:14–16). This is because the land of the family or clan could not be sold permanently (25:23; cf. 1 Kings 2:3). In this context, the word translated by the NIV “is selling” (mkr) is best translated into English as “to surrender the right to.”8
It also seems best to understand (as the majority of scholars do) that Naomi must have inherited rights to the field of Elimelech. The proprietary rights to the land in the Old Testament were vested in the clan, with the individual only holding the right of possession and usufruct.9 Thus, a widow could only hold usufructuary rights to her husband’s property, and she did this only until she married again or died in her turn, at which time the rights reverted to her husband’s clan in the normal order of inheritance.
Since Naomi “is selling” the field, only two broad scenarios are possible explanations: (1) Elimelech did not sell the usufruct of his field before emigrating to Moab, and Naomi now has the usufructuary rights to the field. Naomi through Boaz is calling on the nearer redeemer to acquire these rights from her. The transaction, then, is a case of preemption such as is related in Jeremiah 32.10 (2) Elimelech sold the usufruct of his land11 before he and his family emigrated to Moab, and the field since then has been in the possession of others. Since Naomi has no means to repurchase the field, she transfers this obligation/right to her nearest kinsman. Now Naomi through Boaz is calling on the nearer redeemer to repurchase the field from its present possessor. The transaction, then, is a case of redemption such as is described in Leviticus 25:25. This is the more likely scenario in this context.
Hence, Naomi is surrendering her rights to the usufruct of Elimelech’s land, rights she enjoys as the widow of the deceased. Boaz then solemnly calls on the nearer redeemer to accept these rights and to redeem the field, that is, to repurchase it from the unnamed third party to whom, since it stands in need of redemption, Elimelech must have previously sold it.
Surely this nearer kinsman is aware of Naomi’s return (1:19 states “when they [Naomi and Ruth] arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them”12). Thus, it seems apparent that he has not taken any initiative to “help” Naomi and/or Ruth. In other words, in contrast to Boaz, who had already functioned as a gōʾēl of sorts for Naomi and Ruth, this man has done nothing. It seems likely that this nearer redeemer has been thinking along different lines.
In all probability he knows about the plot of Elimelech.13 So, if he quietly ignores his voluntary family responsibility to marry Ruth (the only eligible widow of marriageable age), then he can negate the possibility of raising up an heir to the property of the deceased (see the discussion of the levirate in the introduction). Without a descendant of the line of Elimelech, the field will simply become part of his own family inheritance. The amount that he would pay to redeem it (and perhaps care for the elderly widow involved) would be offset by the value and produce of the field. With such self-interest in mind, the nearer redeemer quickly consents to redeem the field when Boaz draws his attention to it.
However, the levirate was indelibly linked to the inherited estate (naḥalâ).14 Where the land has already been alienated (as in the case of Elimelech), redemption of it “triggers” the levirate duty15 (cf. the discussion about the levirate in the introduction, pp. 399–403). Thus Boaz now publicly calls on the nearer redeemer to take on (lit., “you acquire”16) the voluntary family or clan responsibility of marrying Ruth the Moabitess, in order (lit.) “to raise up the name17 of the deceased on his inherited estate [naḥalâ]” (4:5).
In appealing to the nearer redeemer (gōʾēl) to raise up the name of the deceased, Boaz is not appealing to the letter of the law but its spirit. This is another manifestation of Boaz’s ḥesed.18 Neither man is legally bound by Deuteronomy 25:5–10 to marry Ruth; it is voluntary. But this does not erase all moral responsibility. As gōʾēl, Boaz, the reader knows, is prepared to do this. But what about this nearer gōʾēl?
The nearer redeemer could have agreed to take on both responsibilities. Thus for a brief moment, suspense builds. Will Boaz lose Ruth to this nearer nameless redeemer? But quickly the narrator relieves any troubling thoughts concerning this. The nearer redeemer reveals that he has neither the motives nor the character to rise to this occasion: “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger19 my own estate [naḥalâ]. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.”20 Thus Bush correctly sums it up:
His words clearly express concern only for his own interests; they show no concern for Ruth and the line of Elimelech at all. Thus unwilling to shoulder his full responsibilities as the redeemer with the prior right, he summons Boaz to acquire his rights (4:8a) and expresses the transfer symbolically by the physical act that customarily accompanied such a transfer: he removed his sandals and gave them to Boaz (4:8b).21
Nonverbal action closes the scene. The nearer redeemer (gōʾēl) removes his sandal and hands it to Boaz as a symbolic act declaring his abdication of his own right of redemption.22
In this light, it is more understandable why the narrator leaves this gōʾēl anonymous and has Boaz address him pejoratively as “So-and-So.” As Trible rightly notes, “Since he refused to ‘restore the name of the dead to his inheritance,’ he himself has no name. Anonymity implies judgment.”23 This is also the probable reason that Boaz assembles an “official” meeting at the city gate. As a man of strength of character (gibbôr ḥayil), he manifests the ḥesed that the spirit of the law intends.
Scene 2. Boaz acquires the right to redeem Naomi and Ruth (4:9–12). Calling the entire assembly to be his witnesses, Boaz formally declares in a full and detailed form the two obligations that the nearer redeemer has ceded to him. His sworn commitment to these obligations encompasses three expansions, as illustrated in the following table.
Item | Formulation given to nearer redeemer | Expanded formulation in Boaz’s legal oath | |
The property | “the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech” (4:3b) | → | “all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon” (4:9a2) |
Ruth’s identification | “Ruth the Moabitess . . . the dead man’s widow” (4:5b1) | → | “Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow” (4:10a) |
The purpose of the marriage | “in order to maintain the name of the dead and his property” (4:5b2) | → | “in order to maintain the name [šēm] of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records” (4:10a2) |
These detailed expansions are not just a formality. They irrevocably and legally obligate Boaz to the family of Elimelech as gōʾēl, thereby securing the restoration of clan wholeness. Through this solemn and emphatic declaration, Boaz names once again the whole family that sojourned from Judah to Moab (cf. 1:2). This reinforces the issue of restoration of the clan—the memory of the deceased may not perish.
The only character from the prologue who is not mentioned is Orpah, for obvious reasons. However, her role as a foil to Ruth has been filled by the nearer redeemer as a foil to Boaz.
But substitution means dissimilarity. Orpah had both name and speech (1:10). She decided to die to the story by returning to her own people, and the judgment upon her is favorable (1:15). The unnamed redeemer chooses to die to the story by returning to his own inheritance, and the judgment upon him is adverse. After all, he is not a foreign woman but the nearest male kin. Thus he passes away with the infamy of anonymity.24
While both Orpah and the nameless gōʾēl are motivated by self-interest, Orpah’s is a self-interest that is humanly understandable; the nameless gōʾēl’s is morally inexcusable. Quite simply, he has failed in every way in his gōʾēl functions.
The elders and all those at the gate declared their witness of the legal proceedings. They then pronounce a threefold blessing on Boaz:
1. “May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.”
2. “May you have standing [ʿ asē ḥayil] in Ephrathah and be famous [qārāʾ šēm] in Bethlehem.”
3. May your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman.25
In the first blessing, the elders express the hope that Ruth will be fruitful and build up the house of Boaz as Rachel and Leah did in the case of Jacob. Interestingly, Rachel is listed first, Leah second. This may be a case in which the more important person is named second, as with Ruth in 1:4, 14 and Mahlon in 4:9. Leah as the mother of Judah and her descendants are in view in the third blessing (v. 12).26
The second blessing contains a poetic paralleling. The last clause enhances the understanding of the first. The phrase qārāʾ šēm literally means “may a name be called/given,” which appears to be idiomatic for “be famous.” The recurrence of the word šēm (name) in this blessing cannot help but be a play on the third part of Boaz’s sworn declaration, “to maintain the name [šēm] of the dead.” Thus the first clause of the blessing is best seen (as the NIV translation reflects) as dealing with standing or reputation, though the richness of the nuances of ʿ asē ḥayil cannot be overlooked.27
The third blessing invokes the case of Perez, the offspring of Tamar and Judah, who in spite of the machinations of his father and mother (Gen. 38)28 proved to be a gracious blessing from God. This blessing subtly speaks to the parallel of Ruth and Tamar as non-Israelites included in the tribal delineation. Like the story of Boaz and Ruth, the story of Judah and Tamar is a story of family continuity achieved by the determination of a woman,29 though the story of Boaz and Ruth is also a tremendous contrast to the tale of Judah and Tamar.30
Boaz is certainly a praiseworthy man. The threefold blessing begins and ends with a reference to the woman he has pledged himself to marry. However, she is not named in any of the three blessings. Moreover, the first blessing mentions her only so that Boaz may have a family commensurate in size with that of the patriarch Jacob/Israel. And she is alluded to in the third blessing only because she is the means through which Boaz may have a family line as significant as that of Perez. The focus and emphasis in the blessings is on Boaz. While the offspring of Boaz and Ruth will count in the family line of Elimelech, he will also count as a genuine scion of Boaz.
Epilogue (4:13–17)
EVEN THOUGH THIS epilogue is brief, its importance to the story is similar to that of its counterpart the prologue (1:1–6), for the resolution to the death and emptiness that have afflicted Naomi are truly resolved in these few verses. In staccato style, the story compresses about an entire year into a few verses in order to bring resolution to the book’s main problem: Naomi’s emptiness.31 In contrast to the ten years of infertility in Moab, Yahweh “enables” Ruth to conceive; she does so almost immediately (4:13). While Naomi’s “children” (yelādîm in 1:5; NIV “sons”) died in Moab, a “child” (yeled) is born to Ruth and Boaz in Bethlehem (4:16).
The epilogue (4:13–17) is also strikingly parallel to Scene 2 of Act 1 (1:19b–22). In the epilogue the women of Bethlehem joyously celebrate the son born to Ruth and Boaz as the one who restores life and fullness to Naomi. This is parallel to 1:19b–22, where the women of Bethlehem joyously greet Naomi only to hear her bitter lament of bereavement and emptiness.
The epilogue divides into two parts, which evince parallel structuring:32
Part 1 (4:13–15) | A | Narrative Statement (4:13) |
B | Speech of the Women (4:14–15) | |
Part 2 (4:16–17) | A′ | Narrative Statement (4:16) |
B′ | Action of the Women (4:17) |
Each narrative statement results in a response on the part of the women. Both A (4:13) and A′ (4:16) are parallel in form and content. The resultant actions of the women B (4:14–15) and B′ (4:17) are also parallel in form and content in that each involves a statement made by the women of the city; both center their attention on the relationship between the newborn child and Naomi; and each contains the idiom “call his name” (qārāʾ šēm; NIV “may he become famous,” 4:14; “they named him,” 4:17). In fact, the last statement of verse 17, “he was the father of Jesse, the father of David,” provides the fulfillment of the prayer of the women for the newborn infant in 4:14b.
The narrative statement of Part 1 (4:13) relates in a straightforward manner the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, her pregnancy (credited to Yahweh), and the birth of a son. All of this, which certainly takes at least a year to transpire, is telescoped into one verse. It is not the events themselves that the narrator is concerned with but their meaning and significance, especially for Naomi.
In the statement that it is Yahweh who enables Ruth to conceive and bear a son, there is a dramatic fulfillment of Boaz’s petition to Yahweh on behalf of Ruth in 2:11–12, for in the realization of home, husband, and child is surely to be seen both her being “richly rewarded” (2:12) and her repayment for the good deed of leaving father, mother, and country for Naomi (2:11). In fact, Ruth now sees restored all that she has given up—and more, for the instant fertility that Yahweh provides stands in stark contrast to the ten years of barrenness in Moab. In this same terse statement, the conception granted by Yahweh marks the immediate fulfillment of the prayer of the legal assembly for fruitfulness for Boaz’s bride, and the birth of the child constitutes the beginning of the fulfillment of their wish for an abundance of descendants for Boaz (4:11b–12).
The speech of the women (B) is threefold and provides the commentary on and meaning of the events just related. This speech devotes itself almost exclusively to describing Naomi’s restoration to life and fullness. Appropriately, it is the women of Bethlehem (cf. 1:19b) who interpret the significance of the boy’s birth. While they praise Yahweh, their focus is on Naomi and the infant boy. He is Yahweh’s provision to Naomi as a kinsman-redeemer (gōʾēl). The meaning of this is given in the following statement: “He will renew [restore] your life and sustain [support] you in your old age.” As a gōʾēl, the infant boy—despite his age—through his birth provides restoration and wholeness to the family. The resolution is perfect. Death and emptiness (1:3–5, 21) have given way to life and fullness—a kind or type of resurrection.
The use of the term šûb (“renew”) in verse 15 also heightens the significance. When Naomi returned from Moab, she bitterly lamented (lit.): “Full was I when I went away, but empty has Yahweh brought me back [šûb]” (1:21). Now, ironically, the jubilant women describe the child as one who will bring back (šûb) life (4:15).
The women base their conviction that this child will do all these things because “your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.” The love they speak of has been demonstrated by Ruth both in words (1:16–17) and in deeds (2:11). Thus, Ruth’s “own love for Naomi will be bequeathed to him.”33 These words also enshrine the story’s ultimate evaluation of Ruth by stating that she has meant more to Naomi than seven sons—the ideal number in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 2:5; Job 1:2; 42:13; Acts 19:14–17).34
The term translated “love” is ʾāhēb, which is essentially a term of covenantal commitment that is expressed in acts of ḥesed. Block observes:
More than anyone else in the history of Israel, Ruth embodies the fundamental principle of the nation’s ethic: “You shall love your God with all your heart” (Deut. 6:5) “and your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18). In Lev. 19:34 Moses instructs the Israelites to love the stranger as they love themselves. Ironically, it is this stranger from Moab who shows the Israelites what this means.35
It is also important at this point to note that the concerns that dominate 4:14–15 are not male concerns but female concerns. Therefore, Yahweh is celebrated by the female chorus
not because he has not left the line of Elimelech without a descendant but because he has not left Naomi without a redeemer to care for her in her need. And the female chorus sees the meaning of this child not in his identity as the heir of Elimelech and all his property but in his role as the restorer of Naomi to life who will support her in her old age.36
Parallel to Part 1, Part 2 (4:16–17) of the epilogue opens with a narrative statement (A′): “Then Naomi took the child, laid him in her lap and cared for him” (4:16). The picture here is that of a fulfilled grandparent enjoying her grandchild. Such a picture is in utter contrast to the bitter lamentation scene in Act 1, in which Naomi decries her emptiness (= childless situation).37 She who was left alone without her two sons (yelādîm, 1:5) now takes the boy (yeled), holds him, and becomes the one who cares for him (4:16).
The narrative statement stimulates a female response in B′ (4:17). They proclaim: “ ‘Naomi has a son.’ And they named him Obed.”38 Just as the women proclaim the significance of the birth in B (4:14–15) with reference to Naomi above, now in B′ (4:17) they joyfully proclaim the meaning of his name. The narrator is using poetic license here. He does not expect to be taken literally as if the women of the neighborhood really are the ones who give the child his name! Rather, these women “name” him in the sense of providing the explanation for his name with their glad cry, “Naomi has a son.” Thus the narrator intends a semantic wordplay:39 The “son born to Naomi”40 receives the name “Obed/server,” understood here in the sense of “provider, guardian” (cf. Mal. 3:17), since he will show kindness to his grandmother.
The normal setting for this type of proclamation was in the context of an announcement to the father of a child, who was waiting nearby to hear the news of the birth.41 Exercising his literary license, the author emphasizes the happy significance of this child for Naomi—she who was childless now has a son—by applying to her the very language of the joyous birth announcement that commonly came to a waiting father.
Finally, a surprise identification is given. The child is “the father of Jesse, the father of David.” This surprise is all the more delightful because the narrator at the beginning subtly hinted at some such connection by his identification of the family as “Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah” (1:2). This, of course, was the very clan and city of David used in the introduction to the narrative in 1 Samuel 17:12: “Now David was the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse, who was from Bethlehem in Judah.” It is at this point that the reader can perceive how precarious the situation was: Without Ruth the line of Elimelech would be extinguished, as too the line of Boaz, and hence no David.
This last statement of the epilogue serves as a logical link to the genealogy of the coda (4:18). It also serves as a link to the earlier speech of the women when they pronounced, “May he become famous throughout Israel!” (4:14).
Coda (4:18–22)
THIS CODA (SEE the discussion in the introduction on unity as well as the structure, pp. 397–99) is linked to the preceding by the personal names Perez, Obed, Jesse, and David and by the skillful use of the number seven.42 The ten names in the genealogy are contrasted with the ten infertile years in Moab.
One of the three blessings of the legal assembly in 4:11–12 was that Yahweh might make Boaz flourish and give him renown in Bethlehem through a family line whose size would be as great as that of the patriarch Jacob/Israel and whose significance would match that of Perez (the premier clan of Judah). This genealogy, which leads from Perez through Boaz to David, bears testimony to the fulfillment of the blessing of the legal assembly of Bethlehem.
The genealogies at the end of the book lift the story to a national level. The first genealogy (at the end of the epilogue, 4:17) begins with Obed, son of Boaz and Ruth, and culminates two generations later in David; the second (here in the coda) goes back to Perez, the son of Judah and Tamar, then leads to Salmon, father of Boaz, and after ten generations also culminates in David. The double emphasis on David moves the book to the national level.
The genealogy also provides a fitting end to the story because it adds a striking significance to the story’s resolution—Naomi’s return to life and fullness. The writer intends the genealogy to portray the significance of the resolution of the story, for that resolution has meaning not only by virtue of all that was discussed in the previous section (i.e., the epilogue), but also by virtue of the fact that it provided an integral link in the family line that led two generations later to David. In this way, the narrator is able to show the “greater” significance of the characters’ decisions and actions and to tie this together with God’s sovereign, providential care.
In other words, the ḥesed shown by Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz has repercussions, not just for themselves in their lifetime, but for the nation of Israel for many generations to come. The long-term impacts of their personal piety has ramifications far beyond their lifetimes. This is because in the sovereignty and providence of God there are implications for a person’s covenantal fidelity often extended for many generations to come (Ex. 34:7a; Deut. 7:9).
Consequently, the original point of the narrative is extended beyond showing God’s providence and care in the life of one family. It now concerns the life of the entire nation, for in the son born to Naomi the history of God’s rule through David has begun. Furthermore, God’s rule through his ultimate ideal king, a son of David and God’s own Son, will come through Naomi’s son. This has ramifications throughout both history and the future.
Thus the theme of family continuity becomes the theme of national continuity. The book of Ruth is the bridge between the era of Israel as family or tribe and Israel as nation. Far from being peripheral to the main narrative sequence of the Bible, Ruth dramatizes its principal theme: the continuity of the people Israel in their land. Moreover, in Yahweh’s providence, the ḥesed of Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi lays the foundation for a salvation that extends to the ends of the earth for a lost world.
IN THIS CHAPTER God demonstrates one final time his sovereignty and providence. The series of “coincidences” in the chapter and the way in which Yahweh weaves the actions of the human characters together for his purposes reinforce this. The timing of the nearer redeemer’s entering the gate at the precise moment that Boaz is preparing the legal action and the sudden ability of Ruth to get pregnant come to mind (see more on this below). Moreover, God demonstrates once more his ḥesed to the two widows through the ḥesed of Boaz.
The ḥesed and integrity of Boaz. Obviously, the cultural customs contained in this chapter are foreign to our modern context. The gōʾēl function, the levirate marriage, and the custom of removing the sandal as a token of transfer of legal rights are practices unknown to our culture (the last item was removed even from the Old Testament culture at the time Ruth was written). Nevertheless, we can understand the roles of these customs in Israel’s tribal/clanish society and appreciate the motivation of ḥesed that was the underlying stimulus to action. Furthermore, we can appreciate the ways in which such customs might be used in ancient times to reflect God’s character, in particular, his ḥesed.
In Act 4, Boaz is presented as one who takes the initiative to do ḥesed. His voluntary act of ḥesed is greatly heightened by the nearer kinsman’s unwillingness to do ḥesed. The fact that Boaz mentions the existence of a nearer gōʾēl to Ruth and takes it on himself to find that person and apprise him of the situation, thereby risking his own chance to marry Ruth, greatly adds to the characterization of Boaz as an honest, upright man. He is a man of integrity. Boaz will not obtain Ruth as a wife by a backdoor maneuver.
While Boaz is loyal to the interests of the family (i.e., Naomi and Ruth) as manifested in his willingness to fulfill his obligation as redeemer, his loyalty is seen to be exponentially greater than this since he is willing to relinquish that privilege if law or custom demand it (i.e., if the nearer redeemer acts to redeem the field and marry Ruth). Yet, the nearer gōʾēl’s declining for reasons other than legal necessity makes Boaz’s putting legal requirements ahead of personal desires stand out all the more sharply.43 This is a man of integrity, a man without guile.
Thus, in Act 4, Boaz is portrayed as knowing the law and of wisely/cleverly implementing it. The other gōʾēl is depicted as selfish, perhaps even greedy and unable to maneuver in legal matters like Boaz. Boaz is unquestionably depicted as “knowing” more than the other gōʾēl, of understanding the implications better than him, and of having a willingness beyond that of the other gōʾēl. In a word, Boaz is wiser than the gōʾēl, just as Ruth is wiser than Orpah. While Orpah’s motivations are pictured as practical, the nearer gōʾēl’s motivations seem to be selfishly driven. In contrast, Ruth and Boaz are depicted as being motivated by devoted loyalty to others.
Thus on the one hand, as in the case of Orpah, we may not pursue acts of ḥesed on behalf of others because those acts don’t seem logical/practical/realistic. In other words, they don’t make sense. On the other hand, as in the case of the nearer gōʾēl, we may not pursue acts of ḥesed toward others because our motives are selfishly driven.
If the book of Judges (esp. in the latter part of the book) presents people doing what is right in their own eyes, being self-absorbed and self-driven, then the book of Ruth presents the very opposite, where Boaz and Ruth in particular are driven by concerns for others, by the issues of ḥesed. An interesting contrast that can be drawn from this is the contrast between Samson and Boaz—the contrast could not be greater.
God’s sovereignty and providence. In Act 4, God restores Naomi—a remarkable testimony to God’s providential care for his people. Gradually, first through subtle hints, then through daily provisions, and finally overtly through the levirate marriage and birth of a baby, God brought Naomi back (šûb). As from the beginning, God is sovereignly in control. He “gives” Ruth an immediate pregnancy (in contrast to the ten years of barrenness).44 The very issues of life and death in this short book are clearly portrayed as in the hands of the Almighty (Shaddai).45
Furthermore, Yahweh provides Naomi with another gōʾēl. There were things that Boaz could do as gōʾēl, and there were things beyond his ability to remedy. Boaz could give provisions to the two widows, he could redeem the land, and he could acquire Ruth as his wife. But he could not, by himself, restore Naomi’s emptiness as a result of childlessness. But through his grace, God is able to do this by means of the birth of Obed. It is he who “brings back” Naomi in this final regard. God’s ability to fulfill prayer and petition is especially emphasized in this birth.
Ruth’s decision to commit her life to Naomi and Yahweh bears results that she cannot have possibly imagined. This is especially true in the context of what God will do through her descendants.
In some ways, God hardly seems present at all in the story of Ruth. He directly intervenes only two times—he gives the Israelites in Bethlehem food (1:6) and gives Ruth conception (4:13). Closer inspection, however, reveals that God is very much present. Though hidden behind the scenes, his sovereign hand is quietly guiding the events of the book. Using Hubbard’s analogy, it can be said:
On stage, Ruth and Boaz faithfully live the lifestyle of ḥesed. Backstage, however, behind them, moves the Great gōʾēl, pained by famine, death, and old age, gently acting to alleviate them. His broad, powerful wings protect those, like Boaz and Ruth, who please him.46
Thus, God is very much at work in this story and in life. Even this genealogy of Perez demonstrates his sovereign plan and work. The goal to which the story moves and has fulfillment is in David. But David serves as part of the link in the genealogy of Judah to Christ in Matthew 1, and so the implications for the Christian who reads this genealogy is ultimately found in Christ. It points to the ultimate Gōʾēl, who would redeem the world.
Thus, in many ways, the coda with its ten-person genealogy anticipates a future beyond the story’s immediate time period. This genealogy has been trimmed unmistakably to place the story’s main male character, Boaz, in the favored seventh slot. By doing this, it relates a moral that was of particular interest to the historically minded Hebrews: When common people act unselfishly toward each other in accordance with God’s standards of ḥesed, they achieve uncommon results. Through this genealogy the narrator of the book of Ruth expounds the faithfulness of God in two marvelous ways: (1) in his preservation of the family that will bear the royal seed in the midst of the dark, troubled period of the judges, and (2) in his reward to those who lived genuine godly lives manifesting his ḥesed through their deeds.
The issue of typology. Undoubtedly, one of the most common and vexing problems that one faces in the interpretation of the book of Ruth is the issue of typology, an issue linked to the difficult question of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, the book of Ruth serves as one of the prime examples of far-fetched Christological exegesis of the Old Testament. Moreover, this typological focus and emphasis has pre-dominated in many devotional commentaries on the book of Ruth to the exclusion of many other important lessons and applications that the book offers its readers. It is important to emphasize all that this important book teaches, especially with reference to God’s providential care.
Consequently, it is illegitimate to draw elaborate parallels between Boaz as Christ and Ruth as the bride of Christ, as is not infrequent within certain Christian circles.47 Boaz is not mentioned once in the New Testament and so obviously is never declared a type of Christ. Just because Boaz is a gōʾēl and the New Testament describes Christ’s death in terms of redemption does not mean that the interpreter is free to draw all kinds of parallels between the two individuals.
It must be remembered that in the Old Testament, Yahweh is identified as Israel’s divine Gōʾēl, an identification particularly derived from his redemptive action in delivering Israel out of Egyptian bondage (e.g., Ex. 15:13).48 Interestingly, the Old Testament, by identifying Yahweh as Israel’s divine Gōʾēl, is stressing the covenant, in which God has bound himself to his people. Therefore, it is natural that Christ’s work of redemption be likened to Yahweh’s work of redemption. Since Yahweh is the divine redeemer, any human (whether Boaz or someone else) who functions as a redeemer will, to some extent, parallel Yahweh.
Hence, Boaz’s action is simply a human outworking of gōʾēl activity as the agent of Yahweh’s divine activity. So instead of being a type with a clear antitype, Boaz is an agent—a human mirror—of the divine work.
Contemporary Significance
DOING ḤESED AND LIVING with integrity before God. Boaz is a man who knows the law (Torah) and is obedient to it. He is unwilling to bypass its directives that give priority to the nearest relative just to fulfill his own gratifications (cf. 3:12). What a powerful testimony! Christians can learn much from Boaz. Because we live in a world that demands to get its own way and is often more than willing to bypass or short-circuit any ethical issue that stands in the way, the church finds itself infected with this way of living. Clear scriptural directives for reconciliation are ignored in order to achieve one’s goals. Unsupported testimony (i.e., gossip) filters its way throughout congregations in order to gain its intended aims. The very idea of “doing ḥesed” does not cross the minds of many a church attendee who is more interested in having his or her needs met.
But just because the law demands that the nearer redeemer have the first option does not mean that Boaz should wait it out. Here he is the initiator; he knows the situation and the law, and not only is he able, but he is willing to do what is right in God’s eyes. Many of our difficulties and problems are the result of not “knowing” God’s Word—in particular, his moral standards as reflected in the Torah. The blessed (Ps. 1) are those who know this law and have inculcated it into their lives. The wise seize the initiative that God gives; they do not wait or hesitate.
The role of the gōʾēl, in one sense, is foreign to our culture. But in another sense, the examples of Boaz and Jesus certainly give us illustrations and models that we can emulate. There are many around us, whether in our families, extended families, or in the church, who desperately need a gōʾēl, that is, someone who can redeem them and restore them to wholeness. This is true in many physical contexts but also in numerous spiritual contexts.
At the root, however, there must be ḥesed. This rich term enables us to act with loyalty, love, and compassion. It provides the basis and proper motives for the action of the gōʾēl. As clearly illustrated in Boaz and Jesus, ḥesed sees the world in a different way. It is selfless, not like the nearer gōʾēl, who is apparently dominated by self-interest.
Finally, the role of gōʾēl among one’s family or church requires ḥayil (strength of character). Just as Boaz and Jesus demonstrated their ḥayil in their integrity and willingness to actually do what was right, so in our modern contexts ḥayil will see that the right thing is done, not just thought about. It provides the fortitude to accomplish as well as the stamina to maintain integrity in the midst of temptations.
The faithfulness of God. In a fallen world that has lost all direction and certainty, the book of Ruth reaffirms time and again the sovereignty and providence of God. At the beginning of the third millennium, modern Western culture has produced a highly mobile urban society in which ties of extended families have, in many cases, disappeared. The norm has become the two-parent working family that is greatly in debt and significantly stressed by the issues of raising children in a more and more promiscuous and violent society. It is easy in the midst of such life stresses to forget that the Lord is sovereignly in control and still providentially cares for his people. Just as God demonstrated his ḥesed through Boaz to the two widows, he demonstrates his loving faithfulness and loyalty to his people today through individuals living out the spirit of his Word, motivated by loving commitment to people in need.
God’s ḥesed restored Naomi, and it restores us. As with Naomi, sometimes the process seems slow from a human standpoint, but gradually and definitely, God acts to “bring us back.” God is sovereignly in control, whether in life or in death. The Lord often provides us with a gōʾēl, sometimes in a form that we would least expect—as he did in the case of Naomi through Obed. In this process, God inevitably demonstrates his ability to answer our prayers and petitions.
In general, our culture does not care much about familial links with the past, with its implications for the future. In fact, our narcissistic society cares little for anyone other than self. But the genealogy at the end of this important little book has not only important links with the past but with the future. The gōʾēl in the seventh place in the genealogy serves as a wonderful type of the gōʾēl who would come—even from among his descendants. This ultimate gōʾēl, who laid down his life to redeem his “brothers” in the great redemption of all time, is the end to which the genealogy moves.
This coda should instill in us hope. When we live a life of personal piety, doing ḥesed to others, loving one another within the community of faith, and loving our neighbors, there is the expectation that through God’s sovereignty and providential care such a life will have impacts that go on far beyond our lifetimes. Because he is a faithful God keeping ḥesed to those who love him, this is not a vain expectation.