INTRODUCTION
1. Background
By any standards the book of Ruth is a classic short story. It has been called the most beautiful short story ever written. It deals with a plot that naturally emerges through conversations between the major characters: Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz.
The setting of the book is the time of the judges. Chronological uncertainties, however, make it impossible to date this period more precisely than the last third of the second millennium B.C.—the period between the initial conquest of Palestine under Joshua and the establishment of the monarchy under Saul. It was a time of moral and political chaos in Israel. There was no strong central government or leader, the people repeatedly turned away from God, and neighboring peoples constantly harassed and invaded the disorganized nation (Jdg 2:14–15; 21:25).
2. Authorship and Date
Jewish tradition in the Talmud accepted Samuel as the author of the book of Ruth. The similarity of the language of Ruth to that of Judges and Samuel was probably responsible for linking it to Samuel. But there is nothing in the book of Ruth itself that helps us to identify the author, though we do know that he was a literary artist and a skillful teacher. The book was almost certainly written during or after the time of David, since one of the main purposes of the book is to point out that Ruth, a woman from Moab, was an ancestor of King David (4:18–22).
3. Theological Values
The book of Ruth does not deal with the major events or the institutions in Israel’s history but with the problems and concerns of a single family in Bethlehem. Through the story of the experiences of this family, Ruth presents unobtrusively but powerfully the concept of divine providence. There are no direct conversations with God or appeals to him, though God is mentioned in the book in various places, and the solemn oath “As surely as the LORD lives” (3:13) is invoked. Clearly divine providence is behind everything that happens in the book—the famine, the deaths, Ruth’s choice of Boaz’s field as a place to glean, his attraction to her, and their eventual marriage.
The covenant relationship that bound the people of Israel to God and to one another underlies much of the book. Though the word “covenant” is not found in Ruth, it is a significant factor in the book’s unfolding plot. Ruth’s eloquent commitment to the God of her mother-in-law (1:16–17) was her acceptance of a relationship voiced earlier by Israel at Mount Sinai (Ex 24:3). When Boaz commended Ruth’s loving care of Naomi (2:12), he was echoing Deuteronomic theology (Dt 28:2). Even Naomi’s bitter complaint (1:21) was based on the presupposition of his faithfulness and trustworthiness by reason of his covenant relationship with his people.
EXPOSITION
I. An Israelite Family’s Sojourn in Moab (1:1–5)
A. Famine in Judah (1:1–2)
1 The story opens during “the days when the judges ruled.” The judges functioned as military leaders in times of crisis; they also served as local rulers, administering political and legal justice (Jdg 4:4–5). The time of the judges was a period of lawlessness and chaos in Israel (cf. Jdg 21:25).
The story begins in a time of famine, a natural catastrophe that occurred often in Palestine, where crops were dependent on the rainfall in its proper season (cf. Dt 28:15, 23–24, 38–40). The famine was probably widespread. “Bethlehem in Judah” is located about six miles south of Jerusalem. The name means “house of bread” and suggests the fertility of the region. Bethlehem is best known as the birthplace of both David and Jesus Christ. Rachel had been buried near there (Ge 35:19).
The severity of the famine caused a certain man and his family to leave their home in Bethlehem and to journey to Moab in the expectation of a fuller life. Permanent migration was not their intention. The “country of Moab” was a land that lay east of the Dead Sea. A large part of this area is fertile and receives adequate rain.
2 The head of the family was Elimelech, whose name means “God is king” or “my God is king.” As a kinsman of Boaz, his ancestry could be traced to the tribe of Judah (2:1; 4:20–21; Nu 1:7). His wife’s name, Naomi, derives from a word that means “pleasant” or “lovely.” The meaning of the two sons’ names, Mahlon and Kilion, is uncertain.
The family is identified as Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. Bethlehem was also known as Ephrath (Ge 35:19) and as Bethlehem Ephrathah (Ru 4:11; Mic 5:2). Ephrathah has been understood to have been either an older settlement that became absorbed into Bethlehem or the district where Bethlehem was located.
B. Deaths of Naomi’s Husband and Children (1:3–5)
3–4a We are not told how long the family was in Moab before Elimelech died. Naomi’s sons married Moabite wives named Orpah and Ruth (4:10 reveals that Ruth was married to Mahlon). Marriages with Moabites were not specifically forbidden by the law (Dt 7:1, 3), though Moabites were not allowed in the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Dt 23:3; Ne 13:1–3). The name “Ruth” is traditionally derived from a word that means “friend” or “friendship”; the meaning of Orpah is less certain.
4b–5 The Hebrew is not clear whether the sons lived in Moab for ten years or were married for ten years before their deaths. For a woman to be “left without” her husband and “her . . . sons” was serious enough in her own community, but in another land she would be in desperate straits. It was only natural that Naomi’s thoughts would turn to her homeland at such a time.
II. Naomi’s Return to Judah (1:6–22)
A. Naomi’s Appeal to Her Daughters-in-law (1:6–15)
6 Naomi heard that the Lord “had come to the aid of” his people in Canaan, so she made preparations to return to Judah. Orpah and Ruth did not question their duty to accompany their mother-in-law, though it meant leaving their own land.
7–8 Apparently the party had not traveled far on the road to Judah when Naomi realized the difficulties that faced her daughters-in-law. Therefore she released them from all obligation to her by encouraging them to return to their “mother’s home.” As returning to their “father’s house” would have been more usual, the reference here is probably to the women’s quarters of the home where comfort would be forthcoming and preparations for another marriage initiated. Naomi’s parting wish was that the Lord would show “kindness” (GK 2876) to her daughters-in-law as they had shown to her.
9 Naomi also expressed the hope that her daughters-in-law would find “rest” (GK 4957) in the home of another husband. This word refers to the security that marriage gave a woman, not to freedom from work. Naomi kissed them in a parting gesture, but they began to weep loudly.
10 Both Orpah and Ruth refused to be separated from Naomi. They pledged themselves to return to Judah with her, abandoning their families, friends, homeland, deities, and prospects for remarriage. Their devotion, while remarkable in the light of what they were giving up to remain with Naomi, was at the same time high commendation of Naomi’s character.
11 Naomi attempted to show her daughters-in-law the irrationality of their determination to remain with her. The verse assumes the law of levirate marriage (Latin levir, “brother-in-law”) and cannot be understood apart from it. This law (Dt 25:5–10) provided for the marriage of a childless widow to a brother-in-law. If the daughters-in-law went with Naomi, as foreigners there would be little or no hope for them to remarry and have homes of their own. Naomi reminded them that she was not pregnant with sons who, as the younger brothers of Mahlon and Kilion, would be obligated to marry their widowed sisters-in-law according to the levirate law. Naomi’s rebuke of their offer was not harsh but considerate. Observe her tender address: “my daughters.” Her unselfish placing of her daughters-in-law’s welfare above her own shows her noble character.
12–13 Naomi pointed out further absurdities of the situation they were creating. She reminded them that she was too old to find a husband. Then, even if she did find one and married that same night, it would be asking too much for them to wait till her sons were grown in order to marry them.
Having sized up the situation, Naomi concluded that her lot was far more bitter than that of her daughters-in-law. Because of their younger ages, they could remarry and find happiness and security in their homeland. But the true bitterness of Naomi’s lot was that she believed the Lord was punishing her. Naomi offered no explanation as to why she thought God was her enemy. Perhaps she could not really understand the calamities that had struck her.
14 The daughters-in-law wept again because of the hopeless situation Naomi had described to them. Orpah then took leave of her mother-in-law with a parting kiss. Ruth, however, refused to leave Naomi. Orpah has frequently been described as unfeeling because she deserted Naomi; but a careful reading of the text shows that, though reluctant to leave, she was obeying Naomi’s wishes. Nevertheless, by returning to her land she returned to her gods (v.15). So she stood in marked contrast to Ruth’s faith (v.16).
15 In ancient times it was believed that a deity had power only in the geographical region occupied by his or her worshipers. Thus to leave one’s land meant separation from one’s god(s). Naomi, though a worshiper of the Lord, encouraged Ruth to join her sister-in-law and return to her land and to her own “gods.” The OT does not acknowledge the genuine existence of other gods, but it does admit their reality as objects of worship.
B. Ruth’s Pledge to Remain with Naomi (1:16–18)
16–17 Ruth’s answer to Naomi has become a classic expression of devotion and loyalty. Ruth’s commitment to go and “stay” (lit., “spend the night”; GK 4328) wherever Naomi went was not limited to the journey back to Bethlehem but was a commitment to share her home and circumstances, whatever they might be, after they returned to Judah. Ruth’s renunciation of her people and gods was total.
By first naming the people and then God, Ruth revealed that she could not relate to God apart from his people. Nothing but death would separate her from Naomi. She swore a solemn curse on herself if she did not keep her promise, invoking the covenant name of God (LORD). Her commitment of no separation even by death probably refers to the Israelite custom of burying members of the same family in a family tomb.
Set in the dark and bloody days of the judges, the story of Ruth is silent about the underlying hostility and suspicion the two peoples—Judahites and Moabites—felt for each other. The original onslaught of the invading Israelite tribes against towns that were once Moabite had never been forgotten or forgiven, while the Hebrew prophets denounced Moab’s pride and arrogance for trying to bewitch, seduce and oppress Israel from the time of Balaam on. The Mesha stele (c. 830 B.C.) boasts of the massacre of entire Israelite towns.
Moab encompassed the expansive, grain-filled plateau between the Dead Sea and the eastern desert on both sides of the enormous rift of the Arnon River gorge. Much of eastern Moab was steppeland—semi-arid wastes not profitable for cultivation, but excellent for grazing flocks of sheep and goats. The tribute Moab paid to Israel in the days of Ahab was 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams.
18 Naomi obviously realized the determination of her daughter-in-law and saw that it would do no good to argue further with her. The solemnity of Ruth’s curse was itself sufficient to deter Naomi from further protestations.
C. Arrival of Naomi and Ruth in Bethlehem (1:19–22)
19 Nothing is told of events along the road back to Bethlehem; but considering that thieves frequently lurked along the roads, it must have been a dangerous trip for two unaccompanied women (cf. Ezr 8:22, 31; Jer 3:2; Lk 10:30). When they arrived back in Bethlehem, “the whole town was stirred” with the news of their arrival. The commotion caused by Naomi’s return may have been from the joy of seeing her again or it may describe the women’s shocked whispering about her abject, changed appearance.
20 Naomi’s reply to the women involves a play on names. Following a common practice of changing a name to reflect changed circumstances (cf. Ge 17:5, 15; 32:28; 35:18; 41:45; Nu 13:16; 2Ki 24:17; Dan 1:7), Naomi asked that her name be changed from Naomi (“Pleasant”) to Mara (“Bitter”). Her reason for changing her name was that God had “made [her] life very bitter” (cf. Job 27:2). The name for God used in this verse is “the Almighty” (Shaddai; GK 8724)—the name of God that the patriarchs knew before he revealed himself to Moses (Ex 6:3). Naomi’s concept of the sovereignty of God caused her to attribute her ill fortune to him, not to chance or to other gods. She did not mean it as an accusation but as an acknowledgment of his total control of all things.
21 Naomi further contrasted her former and current states: “I went away full” (i.e., rich with a husband and two sons). The position of “I” is emphatic and is intended to heighten the contrast with her current condition caused by the Lord—“empty” (i.e., widowed, childless, and poor). Naomi insisted that she should not be called “Pleasant” since the Lord himself had “afflicted” (GK 6700) her. She believed that God was showing his displeasure with her by the misfortunes she had experienced. Naomi probably shared the Israelite belief that God blessed the righteous and brought calamity on the unrighteous (Dt 28:1–2, 15; Job 11:13–20). Again she named “the Almighty” as the one who had brought misfortune (lit., “caused evil”) on her.
22 This verse summarizes the preceding events of the first chapter with one additional bit of information—the two women “returned” at the beginning of the season of barley harvest, i.e., in the eighth month of the agricultural calendar (April/May). This verse prepares the reader for the events to follow in the harvest field.
III. Ruth the Gleaner (2:1–23)
A. In the Fields of Boaz (2:1–3)
1 This chapter opens a window on the hardships of the poor in ancient Palestine. The first verse immediately establishes the relationship of Boaz to Naomi: he was a “relative” of Elimelech, specifically, he was from Elimelech’s “clan.” He was also a “man of standing,” meaning that he was either a good warrior (cf. Jdg 6:12; 11:1) or a distinguished, honored person. The origin of the name Boaz is uncertain. It is the name of one of the pillars in front of Solomon’s temple (1Ki 7:21). If the pillars were named for two of Solomon’s ancestors, the meaning of the second pillar, Jachin, is unknown.
2 Ruth requested that Naomi allow her to go into the fields to “pick up [or glean] the leftover grain.” God’s law expressly allowed the poor the right to glean in the fields (Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Dt 24:19–21), but the owners of the fields were not always cooperative. A hard day’s work under the hot sun frequently netted only a small amount of grain (cf. Isa 17:5–6). Aware of that attitude of the landowners, Ruth hoped she would locate a field in which she would “find favor”; such a desire probably reflects her awareness of how either the poor or foreigners were frequently treated by hostile landowners. Naomi granted Ruth’s request and added an affectionate “my daughter.”
3 By chance Ruth found herself gleaning in the fields that belonged to Boaz. From the perspective of Ruth and Boaz, the meeting was accidental, but not from God’s perspective. Once again the writer reminds the reader that Boaz was from the family of Elimelech.
B. Boaz’s Notice of Ruth (2:4–7)
4 Boaz came from Bethlehem to see how the work was going. He greeted his workers with a typical Israelite greeting: “The LORD be with you!” which gives immediate insight into his character (cf. Jdg 6:12; Ps 129:8). They responded with a similar greeting. This kind of salutation would rarely be heard in fields today!
5 Boaz’s question to his foreman, “Whose young woman is that?” suggests an attraction to Ruth, a woman he had not noticed previously working in his fields. The question suggests that he was seeking information about her ancestry or clan (cf. Ge 32:17–18; 1Sa 17:55–38; 30:13).
6–7 The foreman identified Ruth as the Moabitess who had returned with Naomi. Boaz had surely heard about the return of the two women, though he apparently had not yet met them. The foreman further told of Ruth’s courteous request for permission to glean after the reapers had completed their work, even though the law allowed her the right to glean (cf. v.15, which makes it clear that the privilege of collecting grain from among the sheaves could only be granted by the field’s owner). He described her as hard working, taking little time to rest.
C. Boaz’s Provision for Ruth (2:8–16)
8–9 The good report the foreman gave concerning Ruth could only increase Boaz’s interest in her. His greeting reminds the reader of the disparity of their ages. He encouraged her not to go to other fields to glean but to remain with his servant girls and work alongside them. The men wielded the sickles, and the women followed along, tying the sheaves in bundles. As further proof of his concern for her and his desire to protect her from harm, Boaz told Ruth that he had ordered the men not to “touch” her. She could also drink from the “water jars” that the men had filled for their use. This was a privilege not ordinarily permitted the gleaners.
10 Ruth’s response is typical of ancient Near Eastern expressions of gratitude and humility (Jos 7:6; Jdg 13:20; 1Sa 20:41; 2Sa 14:4). She bowed herself with her face to the ground before Boaz and asked in amazement why she, a foreigner, had found favor in his eyes.
11 Although Boaz did not recognize Ruth when he first saw her (v.5), he had already heard about her. He informed her that he knew of her kindness to Naomi and of her abandonment of her own people and land in order to come to live with a people whom she had not previously known.
12 Boaz pronounced a blessing on Ruth, not only for her sacrificial loyalty to Naomi, but especially for her acceptance of the God of Israel. A vivid idiom describes her faith. It pictures a tiny bird snuggling under the wings of its mother (cf. Dt 32:11). Figuratively the idiom symbolizes God as her Protector (Pss 36:7; 57:1; 91:4).
13 Ruth responded with true humility and undoubtedly with some surprise that Boaz could speak such comforting and kind words to one who did not even have the standing of a servant girl before him. Ruth’s calling Boaz “my lord” was a common way of showing respect. The phrase “have spoken kindly” may be understood as an expression of confidence about the future (cf. Ge 50:21; Isa 40:2). Ruth was not pleading with Boaz to be kind; she was grateful that he was kind.
14 Boaz showed his increasing interest in Ruth by inviting her to share the noon meal with his reapers. The meal consisted of bread (or in a broader sense, food), wine vinegar, and roasted grain. Boaz himself served her as she sat with his reapers. Ruth ate till she was satisfied, with food left over. Then she left to return to the fields.
15–16 After Ruth went back to continue her work, Boaz ordered his reapers to let her glean among the sheaves (not just picking up grain that they accidentally dropped as they reaped) and not to “embarrass” her. Moreover, they were to pull stalks from their bundles that had not yet been tied up by the women and leave them for her to pick up. Boaz’s instructions were generous, far beyond what the law required that allowed gleaners in the fields only after the reapers had finished their work. His actions showed that he already had a special interest in Ruth.
D. Ruth’s Conversation with Naomi about Boaz (2:17–23)
17 Ruth gleaned in the field till evening and then beat out what she had gleaned (i.e., separated the grain from the chaff). Her gleanings measured about one-half to two-thirds of a bushel (twenty-nine to fifty pounds). Such a large quantity could not have been acquired in a day by an ordinary gleaner. It shows how Boaz’s instructions to his reapers aided Ruth and also how diligently Ruth had worked. Ruth probably gathered enough to last Naomi and her for several weeks.
18 Ruth returned to Bethlehem and proudly showed her mother-in-law what she had gleaned that day. She also gave Naomi some of the food she had saved from her noon meal with the reapers.
19 Naomi must have been amazed by what she saw, for her words tumbled out in rapid succession. There was a question concerning where Ruth had worked and a hasty blessing pronounced on the benefactor, unknown as yet to Naomi. Ruth identified him as Boaz.
20 On learning the name of their generous benefactor, Naomi pronounced a second blessing on him but acknowledged that it was the Lord who had not stopped showing his “kindness” to the living and the dead (cf. Ge 24:27; 2Sa 2:5). She added for Ruth’s benefit that Boaz was a “close relative.” As such, he qualified as a “kinsman-redeemer” (GK 1457), a man who under the levirate law could fulfill the duty of preserving the name of the dead by marrying Ruth. The responsibilities of the kinsman-redeemer included avenging the death of a murdered relative (Nu 35:19), marrying a childless widow of a deceased brother (Dt 25:5–10), buying back family land that had been sold (Lev 25:25), buying a family member who had been sold as a slave (Lev 25:47–49), and looking after needy and helpless members of the family (Lev 25:35).
21–22 Apparently interrupted by Naomi before her account was complete, Ruth continued by telling of Boaz’s instruction to her to remain close to his servants till the harvest was finished. Naomi expressed approval that Ruth was allowed the protection of going to the fields with Boaz’s maidens. She was aware that a woman of Ruth’s status could meet with harm if she worked alone in other fields.
23 Ruth accepted Naomi’s counsel and stayed close to Boaz’s servant girls in the fields till both barley and wheat harvests were finished. She continued living with her mother-in-law, to whom she returned from the fields each evening. The two harvest seasons would have lasted for from late April to early June (cf. Dt 16:9).
IV. Encounter at the Threshing Floor (3:1–18)
A. Naomi’s Advice to Ruth (3:1–5)
1 Naomi asked whether she should “try to find a home” for her daughter-in-law—i.e., find security and benefits for her in marriage. Parents customarily arranged marriages in the ancient Near East (Ge 24:3–4; 34:4; Jdg 14:2). Naomi’s motive was unselfish: “where you will be well provided for.” If Ruth remained an unprotected widow in a foreign land, life could go very hard for her.
2 Naomi knew that Boaz was a kinsman (though not the nearest, cf. v.12) who could satisfy the levirate law of marriage. She interpreted Boaz’s kindness to Ruth that allowed her to work alongside his servant girls as an indication of a favorable disposition on his part toward Ruth and possibly a willingness to do the kinsman’s part. Naomi knew that Boaz would be winnowing barley at the threshing floor that same night, and she had devised a plan whereby he might know of Ruth’s willingness to marry him.
3–4 Naomi instructed Ruth to beautify herself according to the custom of the times by washing (cf. Isa 1:16) and perfuming herself. Then after putting on her “best clothes,” she was to “go down to the threshing floor.” Naomi cautioned Ruth not to reveal herself to Boaz till he had finished eating and drinking. Ruth was to “note” where Boaz lay down and then to go in, uncover his feet, and lie down. She would then wait for Boaz to tell her what to do. Naomi probably had in mind that Boaz would recognize Ruth’s action as an appeal to marry her as the next of kin. Though some scholars claim that Naomi was encouraging Ruth to offer herself sexually to Boaz, we must caution against interpreting her advice as an act of such boldness and immorality. It is important to note that only the place of Boaz’s feet was involved in the uncovering.
5 Ruth agreed to do exactly as her mother-in-law had instructed her (cf. Ex 19:8; 24:3; 2Ki 10:5). Verse 9 suggests, however, that Ruth did not wait for Boaz to tell her what to do after he awoke, as Naomi had instructed her. Divine providence does not eliminate human activity.
B. Ruth at the Feet of Boaz (3:6–13)
6–7 Ruth carried out the plan that Naomi had proposed to her. As Naomi had anticipated, Boaz ate and drank. He was happy and contented. Boaz lay down at the end of the pile of grain that had been threshed and winnowed and went to sleep. Ruth entered “quietly” (lit., “in secrecy”; cf. Jdg 4:21; 1Sa 24:4), uncovered his feet, and lay down.
8 Some time must have passed. At midnight Boaz awoke suddenly (perhaps from a bad dream or from the cold caused by his uncovered feet) and discovered that a woman was lying at his feet. In the darkness he did not immediately recognize Ruth.
9 Boaz did recognize the shadowy figure as a woman, as his question “Who are you?” uses a feminine singular pronoun. Ruth immediately identified herself as his “servant” Ruth. Then she asked him to spread the corner of his “garment” over her since he was a kinsman-redeemer. Ruth’s request has been interpreted as a request for protection or perhaps even for marriage (cf. Dt 22:30; Eze 16:8). Marriage, however, was only one function of the kinsman-redeemer; he was also to serve as protector of needy members of the family. It is an arbitrary judgment to insist that Ruth was proposing marriage. It may be significant that she said, “You are a kinsman-redeemer,” instead of, “You are my kinsman-redeemer,” as there was a closer relative (3:12; 4:1). Naomi could not have been ignorant of the existence of the nearer kinsman, though Ruth may have been.
10 Boaz was flattered by Ruth’s kindness in seeking him out. If there had been doubt earlier about his age, it is now clear that Boaz was much older than Ruth. It pleased him that she turned trustingly to him rather than to a younger man, “whether rich or poor.” It is increasingly clear that Boaz interpreted Ruth’s bold actions as a request for marriage.
11 Boaz allayed Ruth’s concern that she might have acted presumptuously or offended him by her forwardness. He assured her that he would do all that she requested. Everyone in Bethlehem knew that she was a “woman of noble character” (cf. Pr 31:10). He assured her that all would know there was nothing wrong in the fact that Ruth had come to him with the request to marry him.
12 Boaz then informed Ruth that there was a barrier to his serving as the kinsman-redeemer—there was a nearer kinsman on whom the legal duty fell. Why Naomi sent Ruth to Boaz instead of to the other man can only be surmised. She may have preferred Boaz or perhaps did not feel free to approach the other kinsman directly and hoped that Boaz would serve as a “go-between.”
13 Boaz requested that Ruth remain at the threshing floor the rest of the night after assuring her that he would contact the nearer kinsman the next morning to see whether he would accept his obligation to her. If he would not, Boaz swore with an oath that he would be Ruth’s kinsman-redeemer. Not to carry through his commitment after invoking the Lord’s name would have been a violation of the third commandment (Ex 20:7).
C. Ruth’s Return to Naomi (3:14–18)
14–15 Ruth remained at Boaz’s feet till morning but arose to leave before daybreak with Boaz’s encouragement, lest it be known that “a woman” had spent the night there. Town gossips would put the worst construction on the incident, thereby destroying Ruth’s reputation and perhaps his own. But before Boaz allowed her to leave, he asked Ruth to hold out the “shawl” she was wearing. He filled it with six “measures” of barley. Then she returned to the city.
16–17 Naomi’s question to Ruth on her daughter-in-law’s return seems strange: “Who are you, my daughter?” It can be understood as initial lack of recognition in the early morning darkness, but more likely the question means “How did it go?” Ruth told her mother-in-law all that had happened. She pointed to the barley Boaz had given her and repeated his admonition, “Don’t go back to your mother-in-law empty-handed” (her “empty” days were about to end; cf. 1:21). These are the last recorded words of Ruth in the book.
18 On learning what had happened, Naomi advised, “Wait . . . until you find out what happens.” She was convinced that Boaz was the kind of person who would not rest till the matter of the right of the nearer kinsman was settled that day. Also, her advice to “wait” reveals a stance of faith—a confident, expectant belief that only God could bring the venture to a successful conclusion.
V. A Transaction at the City Gate (4:1–12)
A. A Kinsman’s Refusal to Redeem Naomi’s Land (4:1–6)
1 Naomi was correct in her assessment of Boaz’s determination to settle the matter as quickly as possible. He went to the city gate, a kind of outdoor court where judicial matters were resolved by the elders and those who had earned the confidence and respect of the people (Dt 22:15; 2Sa 15:2; Pr 22:22; Jer 38:7; Am 5:10). The location also served as a place for transacting business. Boaz waited for the nearer kinsman, who had prior rights and duties toward Naomi and Ruth, to pass that way. In a town the size of Bethlehem, the best place to encounter friends was to station oneself at the city gate. Sooner or later everyone passed that way. Boaz did not have long to wait. He saw the man he was seeking and hailed him. His attention gained by Boaz’s greeting, the man stopped and sat down at the gate with Boaz.
2 Boaz called ten elders who were already nearby to serve as witnesses to the legal brief he was about to set forth. The elders exercised important roles—both judicial and political—in all the periods of Israel’s history (see Dt 19:12; 21:2; 22:15; 25:7–9; Jos 20:4; Jdg 11:7–8; et al.). In matters of dispute they sat and listened to the opposing parties present their cases, heard witnesses, weighed evidence, and then made their decision. In the matter between Boaz and the other kinsman, they primarily were serving as witnesses.
3–4 Boaz proceeded to set forth his case. He explained that Naomi, who had returned from Moab, was selling a piece of land that belonged to their relative, Elimelech. The reader is not told why she was selling it or what her legal claim to it was. According to law, land passed from a man to his son or to his kinsmen; property could pass from father to daughter if there was no son, but the law did not make specific provision for passing an inheritance from husband to wife.
It was important in Israel that land remain within the family (cf. Lev 25:23–28; Nu 27:1–11; 36:1–12; Dt 19:14; 1Ki 21; Jer 32). Boaz urged the kinsman to make his intentions known before the people and before the elders who were witnessing the exchange. Would he redeem the property as the nearest kinsman? The man immediately agreed to redeem the property. He must have felt that it would be to his advantage to buy it.
5 Boaz had a plan to discourage the kinsman from buying the land, so he reminded him of a condition he must satisfy to redeem the land. He must marry Ruth the Moabitess to bear children to restore the name of Elimelech to his inheritance in accordance with the levirate law (see Dt 25:5–9). The firstborn son of their marriage would legally be Mahlon’s son and eventually own the land.
This case differs from the levirate law on several counts: (1) here a more distant relative than a brother was expected to marry the widow; (2) the kinsman removed his own shoe (see comment on v.8) instead of the rejected widow doing it; and (3) apparently no disgrace was involved, as the significance of removing the shoe here was to seal a legal transaction.
6 On hearing Boaz’s inclusion of Ruth in the transaction, the kinsman refused to redeem the land. His justification was that it would “endanger” his own estate. In the presence of the witnesses, he forfeited his right of redemption to Boaz, the next nearest kinsman, by refusing to honor his obligation. Perhaps the kinsman was aware that he would be paying part of what should be his own children’s inheritance to buy land that would revert to Ruth’s son as a legal heir of Elimelech. Or maybe he was reluctant to intermarry with a Moabite woman (cf. Dt 23:3–4).
B. Boaz’s Purchase of the Land (4:7–12)
7 “In earlier times” introduces the author’s parenthetical insertion to describe a custom that was no longer practiced at the time the book was written (cf. Jer 32:9–12). The origin of the custom has been traced to an ancient practice of taking possession of property by walking on the soil that was being claimed (cf. Dt 1:36; 11:24; Jos 1:3; 14:9). Removing the sandal and handing it to another became a symbol of the transfer of the land.
8 In the presence of the gathered witnesses, the kinsman renounced his right to the land and invited Boaz to buy it. In a time when few written records were kept, attestation by a number of witnesses made transactions legally secure. The Hebrew is not clear as to whose sandal was transferred. The practice of removing a sandal described here is different from that described in Dt 25:9 (which suggests contempt by the widow for a husband’s brother who refused to fulfill his duty). Here it appears to be a ritual used to confirm the ratification of a transaction.
9–10 Boaz addressed the elders and all the people who had assembled, reminding them that they were witnesses to what had transpired. He had “bought” from Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and to his sons, Kilion and Mahlon. In addition he “acquired” Ruth (only here is it said that Ruth had been Mahlon’s wife) to become his wife, in order that Elimelech’s name would not disappear from among his people (cf. 2Sa 18:18; Isa 56:4–5). Boaz began and ended his remarks to the elders and the people with the same words: “Today you are witnesses” (cf. Jos 24:22).
11–12 The people answered with what must have been an established legal response: “We are witnesses” (cf. 1Sa 12:5). Moreover, they pronounced a blessing of fertility on Ruth, that she would be like Rachel and Leah, who had twelve sons between them (Ge 29:31–30:24).
The people then pronounced a dual blessing on Boaz—a desire that he “have standing” (likely a phrase that he might achieve wealth) and that he would become “famous” in Bethlehem. In the parallel blessing of fertility in v.12, the people wished that his family would be like the family “of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah” (cf. Ge 38:29; 1Ch 2:5; 4:1; cf. Ps 127:4–5). Perez is intentionally named because he was an ancestor of the house of Judah (Ge 38:26, 29). Since the first son of Boaz and Ruth would be reckoned as Mahlon’s, the people were expressing a hope that Boaz would have many other children, who would legally be his.
VI. Birth of a Son to Boaz and Ruth (4:13–17)
13 Boaz and Ruth were married. We are not told how much time elapsed between their marriage and the birth of their first son. Attributing to the Lord Ruth’s conception after ten years of sterility (1:4) may be the writer’s subtle way of explaining why Mahlon, living in a land that worshiped Chemosh, was unable to have children. Both fertility and barrenness were attributed to the Lord (Ge 29:31; 30:2).
14 The women of the community, who earlier had witnessed Naomi’s bitter lament, now gathered around her to share her happiness. They praised the Lord, giving him credit for providing a redeemer for Naomi. Their statement suggests that the child is the kinsman-redeemer, though this statement should be understood in the context as a blessing pronounced over the child, just as the men had previously prayed for blessing on Boaz (v.11). Boaz is indeed the redeemer (cf. 2:20; 3:9, 12–13; 4:10). The women blessed the child and expressed a hope that he would become famous throughout Israel.
15–16 According to the women’s perspective, this child took away Naomi’s reproach of childlessness and would take care of her in her old age. The women foresaw the child as a restorer of life for Naomi and as the one who would sustain her in her old age. They also had a word of praise for Ruth; she was better to Naomi than seven sons might have been. The tribute to Ruth is striking in light of the importance placed on sons in the OT (cf. 1Sa 1:8; 2:5; Job 1:2; 42:13). Naomi took the newborn child, laid him in her bosom, and cared for him as his guardian.
17 This verse gives the only example in the OT of a child being named by someone other than the immediate family (cf. Ex 2:10). The women who named this grandchild of Naomi called him Obed (“servant”; perhaps it meant he would serve his grandmother as a kinsman-redeemer). A genealogical fragment concludes the verse by linking Obed to David as the father of Jesse and thus as the grandfather of David.
The story of Ruth has shown how a Moabite woman obtained an exalted place in Hebrew history. There is later evidence that David did not forget his Moabite roots. During the period of flight from Saul’s wrath, David asked the king of Moab to let his parents stay there for refuge (1Sa 22:3–4).
VII. The Genealogy of David (4:18–22)
18 Perez, the son of Tamar (Ge 38:29), and Hezron are mentioned in Ge 46:12 (cf. Mt 1:3). The genealogy in Ruth is traced back to Perez, who was the founder of a family of Judah that was named for him, called the Perezites (Nu 26:20), to which Elimelech and Boaz belonged. The list is composed of ten names. It appears that there are gaps (i.e., unimportant names are omitted) in order to preserve the number ten. The first five names cover the period from the time of the entry into Egypt (Perez, Ge 46:12) to the time of Moses (Nahshon, Ex 6:23; Nu 1:7), while the remaining five belong to the period of the early settlement in Canaan to the closing years of the judges.
19–21 For other listings of the genealogy that is recorded here, but with different spellings for some of the names, see Ge 46:12; Nu 1:7; 26:21; 1Ch 2:4–12, 25–27, 51, 54; 4:1; Mt 1:3–5; Lk 3:31–33.
With the naming of Boaz, the rest of the genealogy falls into focus. Neither Mahlon nor Elimelech is included, however, as the “legal” father of Obed; instead, Boaz, his natural father, is listed.
22 The link to David has now been established. Obed is presented as the father of Jesse and thus the grandfather of David.
It is difficult to know precisely why the book of Ruth ends with a genealogy. It is unlikely that the only purpose of the story was to lead up to the genealogy, and yet it is improbable that the book of Ruth would have found its way into the OT canon apart from its connection with David. Perhaps the genealogy was included to remind the reader of the hand of God in the direction and continuity of history. Two people brought together by a highly unlikely series of circumstances became ancestors of the great king of Israel, David, who in turn for Christians provides an integral link in the genealogy of our Lord.