Is this where Jesus was born? (1:1)
Yes. Bethlehem, five miles south of Jerusalem, was later known as the town of David (Lk 2:4) and the birthplace of the Messiah (Mic 5:2; Mt 2:1).
Was it wrong for an Israelite to marry a foreigner? (1:4)
The Moabites, though not Israelites, were considered distant relatives because they were descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Ge 19:36–37). Therefore, the restrictions against marriage to foreigners did not apply to the Moabites. But the Moabites and Israelites were longstanding enemies; no Moabite or any of his descendants to the tenth generation was allowed to enter the Lord’s sanctuary (Dt 23:3).
Why did Naomi regret not being able to have more sons? (1:11–12)
Naomi was referring to the levirate law, which required a deceased man’s brother to marry his brother’s widow if she had no son. This law protected the widow, preserved the brother’s name and continued the family line (Dt 25:5–10). Naomi’s sorrow was because she could not provide husbands for her daughters-in-law and therefore would have no offspring to continue the family line.
Was God to blame for Naomi’s bitterness? (1:13, 20–21)
Naomi believed he was. Her thoughts are a reflection of the Old Testament view that the sovereign God is in control of everything that happens, good or bad. Naomi was expressing normal human emotions. We’ll miss the whole point of this story if we don’t enter into Naomi’s struggle with loss. Like Job, she believed God had turned against her (Job 6:4; 7:20; 16:11–14). Grief drew her toward God with an honesty he invites.
Why did Naomi tell Ruth to return to her own gods? (1:15)
Naomi knew that Ruth and Orpah, as Moabites, would be at a disadvantage. She urged them to go back because she cared about them. In ancient times it was believed that a deity had power only in the geographic region occupied by his or her worshipers. People were seen as inseparable from their land and their gods. Naomi wouldn’t have expected Ruth and Orpah to believe in Israel’s God.
Why did Ruth say God could punish her if she broke her promise? (1:17)
This is one of the most powerful conversion accounts in the Bible. In contrast to Orpah, who sensibly submitted to her mother-in-law and headed back to her parents’ home, Ruth rejected Naomi’s commands. Light had penetrated Ruth’s heart. She could not return to the darkness of her own gods, no matter what it cost her. Calling down God’s wrath silenced Naomi and put teeth to Ruth’s vow. This vow was the impetus for Ruth’s actions in the rest of the story. Thereafter she lived as a follower of the Lord.
Why didn’t Naomi direct Ruth to Boaz’s field in the first place? (2:1–3)
We don’t know. For some reason Naomi did not seem to expect help from her husband’s guardian-redeemers, of whom Boaz was the second. It might be that on returning to Bethlehem, Naomi was deeply depressed—so much so that old friends didn’t recognize her (1:19)—and so she didn’t offer guidance to Ruth. The meeting of Ruth and Boaz in his field emphasizes the role of God’s providence in looking after the needs of the two widows. Later, when Boaz blessed Ruth, Naomi recognized Boaz’s dedication to them as family (2:20) and advised Ruth to continue gleaning in Boaz’s fields because he had guaranteed her safety (v. 22).
Why could Ruth take grain belonging to others? (2:2)
Mosaic Law prohibited landowners from harvesting the corners and edges of their fields and instructed them to leave behind grain their hired harvesters had missed (Lev 23:22; Dt 24:19–20). The poor were permitted to gather the grain left after the harvesters had bundled the sheaves. It was a hand-to-mouth existence, but Ruth was grateful that she was allowed, as a foreigner, to glean (Ru 2:10).
Was Ruth in danger? (2:9; see also 2:22)
As a foreigner and as a widow without a male family member to act in her defense, Ruth was completely vulnerable. We are not told what might have happened to her, but Boaz’s blunt instruction to the men working in the fields suggests that a lone woman was in danger of harassment—if not worse. This reality gave Naomi reason to be anxious for Ruth’s welfare.
Why was Boaz so impressed by Ruth’s devotion to her mother-in-law? (2:11)
People were talking in Bethlehem about the young Moabitess who had left her own people and gods to come with Naomi to their town and embrace their God. Her radical sacrifice demonstrates the gospel’s theme, for she laid down her life for another. Compelled by her vow to care for Naomi, Ruth worked hard all day with few breaks. Boaz rewarded her dedication by instructing his workers to allow her to gather among the sheaves; what’s more, he told them to pull stalks from the bundles and leave them for her (vv. 15–16).
Was Boaz’s kindness toward Ruth unusual? (2:15–16)
It was probably unusual for a landowner to have any contact with gleaners. Boaz’s attentions to Ruth have traditionally been attributed to romantic interest. But a godly man of Boaz’s stature in the community probably would not have looked for love among those scavenging to survive.
How was barley threshed? (2:17)
The cut stalks were laid on a flat rock or on packed ground called a threshing floor. Small amounts of grain were beaten with sticks, as undoubtedly Ruth did here. For larger amounts, workers used animals to trample over the stalks or drove rudimentary machines over them. This continued until all the grain was freed from the stalks.
An ephah was roughly 29 pounds, or 3/5 of a bushel. In one day Ruth had gleaned an unusual amount of barley, which marked a turning point in the story for Naomi.
What was a guardian-redeemer? (2:20; 3:12; 4:3–6)
A guardian-redeemer was a close family relative. His duties, under the Mosaic Law, were to redeem (buy back) the land of a relative who had fallen into hard times (Lev 25:25), to buy back an enslaved relative (Lev 25:47–49), to avenge a relative’s murder (Nu 35:19–21), and to fulfill the levirate law, that is, to provide an heir for a brother who had died (Dt 25:5–10). The responsibilities of a guardian-redeemer called for sacrifice: the man who performed these duties voluntarily diminished his own inheritance for the sake of another.
God is the guardian-redeemer of his people. Throughout the Old Testament, he is seen voluntarily redeeming and restoring Israel (Ex 6:6–8; Ps 19:14; Isa 43:1). The word redeemer finds ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah (Isa 59:20; cf. Ro 11:26). Jesus Christ, our near guardian, sacrificed himself to bring us into God’s family (1Pe 3:18). In the New Testament, the concept is reflected in the various words for redeem, a word which suggests paying a ransom, buying back or saving from loss (Mt 20:28; Ro 5:10; Gal 4:4–5; 1Ti 2:5–6; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7; Heb 9:15; 1Pe 1:18–19).
What changed Naomi’s outlook from the beginning of the story? (2:20)
Pain had probably sensitized Naomi and prepared her to recognize God’s love. Seeing Ruth’s load of grain (vv. 17–18), Naomi realized that God had not forgotten his kindness (hesed) to her. We have no English equivalent for the Hebrew word hesed—a self-sacrificing, stubborn, costly, undeserved, voluntary love—which is the love God has for his people and the love his people are to have for others. Ruth’s acts of hesed (as well as those of Boaz and his harvesters) demonstrated God’s hesed to Naomi’s hungry soul, reawakening her hope in God.
How did Boaz honor the dead? (2:20)
Naomi identified Boaz as one of her family’s guardian-redeemers (see the article What was a guardian–redeemer? [2:20; below]). Scholars have debated whether the phrase he has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead refers to God or to Boaz. Perhaps the author deliberately employed ambiguity to stress that both Boaz and the Lord (through Boaz) had shown hesed. If Naomi was referring to Boaz’s kindness, she was likely linking Boaz’s generosity to his commitment to Elimelek and his sons (the dead). Boaz’s kindness awakened Naomi’s belief that God had forgotten neither the living nor the dead, for he was blessing both through Boaz’s goodness.
How was barley winnowed? (3:2)
After threshing (see How was barley threshed? [2:17; above]), the cut stalks were tossed into the air with a pitchfork or shovel so the wind could carry away the straw and chaff (bits of husk that held the grain in place on the stalk), while the kernels fell onto the threshing floor. The threshing floor was located on the downwind side of the village, so the chaff would blow away from the village. Winnowing was usually done in the evening, after the day’s harvesting and threshing were complete.
What was Naomi instructing Ruth to do? (3:3–4)
She was telling Ruth to present herself as a woman eligible for marriage. Revived by God’s hesed (2:20), Naomi focused on Ruth’s future, since the younger woman would likely outlive her. Naomi focused on Ruth’s security and finding a suitable husband for her (3:1). A man of Boaz’s age (he was not a young man [v. 10]) and stature would most likely have had a wife and children, so producing an heir would not have been a primary motivation. Naomi hoped compassion and family connections would make him inclined to marry Ruth.
Why did Boaz sleep at the threshing floor? (3:7)
There was general disregard for the law during this time when the judges ruled (1:1) and everyone did as they saw fit (Jdg 21:25). It’s likely that Boaz and his men slept there to protect the grain from theft. Naomi chose the perfect moment to have Ruth approach him. Darkness shielded both Ruth and Boaz from public shame should Boaz refuse, and it also gave him the freedom to do so.
Was Ruth being immoral? (3:7–8, 13–14)
Ruth’s actions were simply a ceremonial request for marriage. What we do know is that Ruth and Boaz both had impeccable character, that Ruth’s quiet actions neither compromised Boaz nor forced him into marriage (he praised her conduct), and that she did not dishonor the nearer guardian-redeemer, who had first rights to marry her and redemption of Elimelek’s land.
What did it mean to spread the corner of your garment over someone? (3:9)
Ruth’s proposal alludes to Boaz’s earlier description of her taking shelter under the Lord’s wings (2:12). Spreading the corner of his garment reflects a marriage custom still practiced today by some Arabs whereby a man symbolically takes a wife by throwing the corner of his garment over her. Ruth’s request employed language (you are a guardian-redeemer of our family) that set the legal system in motion. The only obstacle to their marriage was the nearer guardian-redeemer (3:11–13).
How was Ruth showing kindness to Boaz? (3:10)
The English word kindness falls short of Boaz’s meaning because hesed is the Hebrew word he used (see What changed Naomi’s outlook from the beginning of the story? [2:20]). Earlier Boaz had affirmed Ruth’s exceptional kindness toward Naomi (2:11). Here he proclaimed that she was showing him an even greater kindness. Instead of chasing after young men and thereby serving her own pleasures, Ruth respectfully and honorably asked Boaz to join her in rescuing this dying family—a notion foreign in our world but paramount in theirs. Her vow on the road to Bethlehem (1:16–17) had been only the beginning.
Biblical teaching on male and female roles and relationships in the church is first and foremost grounded in the foundational principle of equality in Christ (Gal 3:28)—neither gender is intrinsically better than the other. Yet within that equality, God’s Word assigns distinctive roles to each gender.
For example, the apostle Paul gives specific instructions in the New Testament regarding male and female roles—especially in his letters to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians and Timothy. Paul indicates that the responsibility of leadership in the home falls to husbands (Eph 5:23–33). He told Timothy that women were to be restricted from serving in the office of elder (1Ti 2:12; 3:1–5).
Some scholars have suggested that this limitation was confined to the region of Ephesus, where Timothy was serving; other scholars feel this limitation is unlikely in view of the similar themes found in other passages (e.g., 1Co 11:8–9; 14:34–38; 1Pe 3:4–6). Similarly, some scholars feel that these gender roles were merely an accommodation to New Testament culture that is no longer necessary (Gal 3:28), while others note that Paul rooted these directives in the created order (1Co 11:8–9; 1Ti 2:11–14).
The New Testament texts that exhort women to comply with the cultural custom of female submissiveness do not refer to the spiritual authority of male over female as a timeless creational mandate. Rather, the New Testament submission texts (e.g., 1Ti 2:11) speak of the Biblical principle—emphasized especially in Christ’s teaching and the letters of Paul and Peter—that all believers should be submissive to one another rather than seek to rule others (Eph 5:21–30). And all believers should also submit to the civil laws and cultural standards of the day to the extent that they do not involve disobedience to God’s law. For example, Paul’s command to Timothy that women be silent in the church was not absolute (1Ti 2:12), for women prayed in the assembly and exercised the gift of prophecy (1Co 11:5).
Moreover, women are not the only ones who are told to be “quiet” in Scripture. Similar language is used elsewhere in contexts that would include males (e.g., 1Co 14:28; 1Th 4:11). Thus, women in the New Testament church, who were in many ways culturally and legally subordinate to men, were instructed to comply with their social role in a manner that brought glory to God.
Why was Naomi selling her land? (4:3)
If Naomi’s husband sold the land before they left for Moab (1:1), Naomi still had the right to redeem the property (Lev 25:23–25). If this was the case, Naomi was technically selling the right to repurchase the land—something only a close relative was permitted to do. Alternatively, if Naomi still owned the land but was forced to sell it because she needed the money it would bring, it was the duty of the guardian-redeemer to buy any land in danger of being sold outside the family.
If redeeming the land also meant marrying the widow, why didn’t Boaz have to marry Naomi? (4:5)
The law of “levirate marriage” (levir is Latin for “brother-in-law”) stipulated that a deceased man’s brother was required to marry his brother’s widow and produce a son to carry on his dead brother’s name and lineage (Ge 38:8; Dt 25:5–10). Elimelek obviously had no living brother, and the book of Ruth shows that the custom extended to the nearest living relative. Naomi was too old to get pregnant (Ru 1:12), so the levirate law would not have applied to her. In a radical act of hesed (risking further disappointment, disgrace and sorrow to herself), Ruth offered herself as Naomi’s surrogate.
How would his own estate have been endangered? (4:6)
The nearer guardian-redeemer probably refused to marry Ruth because he was afraid that if he and Ruth produced his only surviving male heir, not only the land in question but also his own property would transfer to Elimelek’s family.
Since Perez’s mother had been a schemer, what kind of blessing was this? (4:12)
Perez was Boaz’s ancestor (vv. 18–21), so it was proper to refer to him in the blessing (v. 18) that the family flourish. And Tamar, Perez’s mother, had been in a situation similar to Ruth’s: she had been a widow facing a childless future (Ge 38:1–30). Because Judah did not keep his word when he offered his youngest son as Tamar’s husband, Tamar tricked Judah into fathering her twin sons. Perez and his brother symbolized offspring born despite hopelessness.
How was this baby Naomi’s guardian-redeemer? (4:14–15)
Though she would go to her grave grieving the loved ones she had buried in Moab, the birth of Obed restored Naomi’s future. He was the Lord’s provision to Naomi as a guardian-redeemer in the sense that he would renew Naomi’s life and support her in her old age. As a guardian-redeemer, the infant boy would make her family whole again.
Why did the women say that Ruth was better to Naomi than seven sons? (4:15)
Because the number seven was symbolic of completeness and perfection, having seven or more sons was the best blessing any family could receive. It was ultimate praise for Ruth’s devotion to Naomi.
If Naomi was Obed’s grandmother, why call him her son? (4:17)
Ruth’s deceased husband, Mahlon, would have been considered the boy’s father for purposes of inheritance. As Mahlon’s heir, Obed would be responsible for Naomi’s care in her old age, as Mahlon would have been if he had lived.
If Boaz married Ruth to preserve Mahlon’s name, why isn’t Mahlon in the lineage? (4:21)
Mahlon’s name remained with his property on the town records (v. 10). This genealogy, however, traces the biological lineage of King David back to Perez, who is identified (v. 12) as the son of Judah, the tribal patriarch. Also, the nearer guardian-redeemer remained unnamed but the name of Boaz—the man who made costly sacrifices (v. 6) for his relative Elimelek—was preserved forever.
Why did God choose a foreigner, a non-Israelite, to be an ancestor of David? (4:22)
The genealogy is the punch line of the story. The lives of Ruth, Naomi and Boaz had kingdom significance. Unbeknownst to them, the family they saved was in the royal line of King David and Jesus, the Messiah. Ruth was not the first Gentile in this line (Mt 1:3 and Mt 1:5 list the Gentile women Tamar and Rahab). From the outset God’s kingdom has always been global.