A Private Commentary on the Book of Ruth by James D. Quiggle

A Private Commentary on the Book of Ruth, Copyright © 1994 by James D. Quiggle, revised

2002, 2008 All Scripture quotations, are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Permissions Notice The Private Commentary© series of biblical commentaries is solely the production of the author, James D. Quiggle. This “Permissions Notice” must be present in any and every copy of this Commentary. This Commentary may be privately printed by an individual, private Bible study groups, a local church body, or para-church organizations for teaching purposes only, but must be printed in whole. Reproduction of one or more parts separated from the whole is not authorized. This Commentary may not be reproduced or distributed in any manner not specifically permitted in this notice. Individuals are permitted to print this Commentary for personal study. Bible Study groups, a local church body, or para-church organizations may print this Commentary for teaching purposes only, one book per person actively involved in a Bible study of a specific Bible book. The intent of this permission is to allow individuals a personal copy of the Commentary as an aid to their personal study. This Commentary so reproduced must be printed in whole. Colleges and Seminaries must contact the author for permission to use, reproduce, or otherwise distribute any Commentary in the Private Commentary Series, for use in a classroom setting or any other kind of distribution. Should a specific Commentary or the whole Private Commentary series be reviewed in a church or denominational newsletter, a Christian magazine or periodical, whether in print and/or Internet media, the reviewer may reproduce no more than 1,000 words from the Commentary so reviewed. The reviewer is herein requested to email me a copy of the review. I privately publish on CD one (perhaps two) Private Commentary books per year. Contact me for a free CD containing all current Commentaries. For other permissions, information, notice of review, etc., please contact me: [email protected]. James D. Quiggle Private Commentary On the Bible

Preface The Private Commentary on the Book of Ruth was written to support the author’s teaching ministry in his local church. The plan of the Private Commentary series is a verse-by-verse explanation and application of the spiritual truths, principles and precepts presented in the Scripture. The scope of the work is to bring the reader/student to a practical understanding of the Scripture. In every commentary I explain and discuss each verse, idea, theme, and biblical truth as discovered in turn during the course of the exposition. My target audience is the local church Pastor, and the non-technical Bible study/small group leader or Sunday School teacher. My point of view is a conservative theology. Contrary or alternate opinions concerning the Scripture are presented and discussed as I believe will be of profit to the target audience. This commentary is my opinion of Ruth, neither more nor less. I am responsible for the use made of all quoted material. Bible students who desire to understand and apply the message of Ruth are invited to study the book with me and come to their own conclusions. This commentary is distributed in Adobe PDF format via email or CD.

To Hollies Lockaby Who Introduced me to the Savior

Introduction

Introduction Every book of the Bible gives critics and unbelievers alike an opportunity to question matters such as date, authorship, purpose and inspiration; Ruth is no exception. I believe and teach the book of Ruth is an authentic, accurate and credible account of the history of Naomi, Ruth, Boaz and the other persons mentioned in this history. I believe its place in the Scriptures was and is providentially assured, and that matters of authorship and purpose agree with the doctrine of inspiration. I have a simple view of Ruth. My purpose is to define Ruth in terms of her own culture and make an application to the Christian life. The book of Ruth had meaning for the human author and significance for his original readers, and has significance for every generation of believers. The book of Ruth gives the reader another view of Israel during the times of the Judges. “The lovely idyl of Ruth . . . happily reminds us of what we are apt to forget in reading [Judges], that . . . the blackest times were not so dismal in reality as they look in history.”1 The book finds its significance in the contrast between recurring apostasy in the times of the Judges and the faith demonstrated by the people in Ruth. The book of Ruth gives the reader hope in the times of trials, persecutions, and recurring apostasy faced by the church since its inception, in the midst of the moral degradation and dissolution of the worldly society of which they are “in but not of,” and the constant influence and in-roads made by the world into the life of believing Christianity. These times are not so dismal as they might seem, for God has his people of faith and obedience in every time; and haply we might be found among that number, a Ruth or a Boaz, faithful and obedient, in the midst of evil times. “In retelling the story of these long-ago people from Bethlehem, the narrator describes for the modern reader what the life of faith should look like. The measure of a people’s or a person’s faith is not found in the miracles that one can wrest from the hand of God nor in one’s personal health and prosperity, but in demonstrating ethical character. If the words of James are true [and they are], that ‘faith without works is dead’ (James 2:17), then this book paints a picture of a lofty theology and an inspiringly vibrant faith.”2 Ruth is a story of faith from its barest beginnings in its first profession, to the fruition of faith in obedient and faithful practice. Everywhere in Ruth we find God. Unseen he works, bringing judgment to the faithless and working with and in faithful and obedient lives arranging circumstances, giving grace, and bringing blessings. To understand the message of Ruth is to be able to perceive the hand of God at work in our own historical circumstances. I believe Ruth began as an oral history of family origins. The intimacy of detail (e.g., only three people knew what took place at Boaz’s threshing floor) suggests that the story of Ruth was known and told in the house of Boaz and repeated to his descendants. My view is that the book was first an oral history passed down to family and close friends, a family story of how mom and dad first met. What couple has not told the story of their romance and marriage to friends and family? What parent has not been asked, “how did you and mommy meet?” This is a romantic story, and certainly the addition of a Moabitess to a family in Israel was worth remembering and repeating. The story was at some point committed to written form. The oral and then written form of the book is seen in the language. The speeches in the book are common language, dialects used in the early history of Israel, such as that in use during the time of the Judges, but the narrative is classical Hebrew. Boaz talks “countrified dialect as contrasted with the more literary Hebrew of [the narrative 1 2

Maclaren, Expositions, II: 259. Block, Judges, Ruth, 615.

i

Introduction

of the book of] Ruth.”3 The dialects from the oral history are preserved by the narrator, who writes his parts in the literary language of his day and age. There is also a poetical quality throughout the book, and some commentators believe parts of the book were originally poetry (a means of preserving an oral history) before becoming prose.4 The story was passed along the generations, part of a verbal and written history of the family of Boaz, leading to the most illustrious member of that family, king David. At some point the oral history became written history. Does the means of transmission undermine the doctrine of inspiration? No, God preserved the oral history so that it remained authentic, accurate and credible, just as he has done with the written history. Why was Ruth written? In its historical context, the story of Ruth the Moabitess may have been desired as the story of King David’s origin. At some point during David’s life someone, perhaps David himself, a relative, a scribe,5 wanted to record the story of the King’s family history. The oral history became the written history. In relation to generations of believers, the book of Ruth reveals a great deal concerning God’s relationship with man. Each of the main characters are seen to depend upon God for success in their plans: Naomi for a son to raise in the name of and for the inheritance of her dead husband; Ruth for a husband and a future family in Israel; Boaz for a wife and family; YHWH6 for His purposes in David, and eternal purpose in Christ the Messiah. The book of Ruth teaches believers about God’s sovereignty. The key verse in this regard is 2:12, “The Lord repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.”7 God is present to bless his people and guide them to do his will. In the “kinsmen redeemer” who buys back Naomi’s land and marries Ruth, there is a typological picture of salvation in Jesus Christ. The story of Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz tell us about the loving God who delivers his people from sin, guiding their path in life, and blessing their faithfulness. From another point of view, “the moral lessons which Ruth incidentally teaches are of the most interesting and touching character: that private families are as much the objects of divine regard as the houses of princes; that the present life is a life of calamitous changes; that a devout trust in an overruling Providence will never fail of its reward; and that no condition, however adverse or afflicted, is absolutely hopeless, are truths that were never more strikingly illustrated than in the brief and simple narrative before us.”8 Although the book probably received its written form during David’s reign,9 the story itself dates

Morris, Ruth, 242, 243. Morris, Ruth, 242, 243. 5 Probably not Samuel, unless it was written near the time Samuel anointed David to be king,1Samuel 16:13. Samuel was dead before David became King, 1 Samuel 28:3; 2 Samuel 5. 6 The tetragrammaton YHWH is an ancient Hebrew word for God. The ancient Hebrew alphabet did not have vowels, only consonants. Later, small “points” were added to the words as an aid to pronunciation. These points developed into vowels, and YHWH was probably pronounced YaHWeH. The English equivalent “Jehovah” had a curious development. The Jews believed the name of God, YHWH, was too sacred to pronounce. In oral presentation (but not in the written text) they substituted the word Adonay, meaning lord or master, where ever YHWH appeared in the text. Medieval Jewish scholars conformed to this view by adding the vowel points of Adonay, the word for lord or master, to the consonantal word YHWH, when YHWH appeared in the written text, thus changing the word and pronunciation to YaHoWaH. English translators (ASV) phonetically smoothed the word to Jehovah. 7 Morris, Ruth, 242, 243. 8 McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, IX: 272. 9 Various other kings have been suggested, from Solomon to Josiah. In these views the book is seen as an apologetic for the monarchy, or some particular monarch. The problem with these views is that they deny the historicity of the events of the book. The view of Ruth as a historical account of the family of David lets the story be genuine. 3 4

ii

Introduction

from about 100 to 150 years before David. The Reese Chronological Bible10 places the story of Ruth between Judges 4:3 and 4:4, during the time of the oppression by Jabin and the deliverance by Deborah and Barak. Keil and Delitzsch11 place Ruth during the days of the Midianite oppression, Judges chapter six, because that seems to them a reasonable time for a famine in the land. Hubbard elects the time between Ehud and Jephthah12 (a period of some 300 years) because, except for the time of the Moabite king Eglon, Judges 3:12-30, Israel dominated Moab. Any of these times seems reasonable for the story of Ruth. One study of biblical chronology and genealogy13 provides food for thought on this subject. Hollingsworth poses an date of circa 1188-1148 for Gideon’s judgeship (Judges 6:11-8:35), the birth of Boaz as between circa 1155-1140, and the birth of Obed as circa 1110-1100 (making Boaz between 40-45 years old at Obed’s birth). Counting backwards ten years–the approximate time Naomi spent in Moab (Ruth 1:4)–then the famine would have taken place after Gideon’s judgship, i.e., after the Midian oppression was over. If the chronology and genealogy is accurate, then the famine may have been natural (versus the manmade Midian-caused famine) and localized to Bethlehem and the surrounding area,14 a position held by several commentators. The Jews generally considered the book as an appendix to Judges, usually including it with Judges when the books of the Bible were numbered. When Ruth stood alone, it was placed just where it is today, immediately following Judges. The story of Ruth presents a different view of the period of the Judges than we get from Judges itself. The story views the Israelites as gracious to one another and mindful of their social and family responsibilities. YHWH is truly known and worshiped as God, and looked to as the author of both blessing and calamity (cf. Isaiah 45:7). There is no hint of idolatry in Bethlehem, and the only possible violation of the law was the inclusion of Ruth the Moabite into the congregation of Israel. Bear in mind, however, that Ruth had become a Jew, 1:16, 17. How this happened, how the family of Elimelech was restored to its inheritance, and how a Gentile came to be in the lineage of Jesus the Christ, is the story of Ruth.

Reese, Chronological Bible, 395-399. Keil and Delitzsch, Ruth, 470. 12 Hubbard, Ruth, 85. 13 Hollingsworth, Biblical Chronology/Genealogy. 14 Ruth 1:6 does not mean the famine lasted 10 years. Naomi could have heard this news at any time, but the death of her sons made it pertinent and provided her the opportunity to act. 10 11

iii

Ruth One

1 Now it came to pass, in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem, Judah, went to dwell in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. 2 The name of the man was Elimelech, the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion—Ephrathites of Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to the country of Moab and remained there. 3 Then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons. 4 Now they took wives of the women of Moab: the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth. And they dwelt there about ten years. 5 Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died; so the woman survived her two sons and her husband. Now it came to pass Although there are several minor characters, the main characters in the story are Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz. There are two unseen but important characters in the book of Ruth. One is the narrator. The narrator provides prologue, introduction and epilog. Throughout the story the narrator gives behind-the-scene details and his moral and spiritual impressions of the actions taken by the other characters. The other unseen character is YHWH. The book of Ruth reveals the hand of God moving for good in the lives of his people. “No judge, or prophet, or priest is involved in these events, but the hand of God is just as discernable to the eye of faith as if it had been literally visible. And yet the wonder of his providence is that each of the protagonists is able to make his or her choices without there being even the slightest sense of them being mechanized or programmed.”15 The providence of YHWH is seen in the “just happened” events of the book. Naomi and Ruth just happen to return to Bethlehem at the time of the barley harvest; Naomi just happens to have a wealthy relative, Boaz, who could redeem them from poverty; Ruth just happens to glean in the field of Boaz; Boaz just happens to come to the field when Ruth is present. The things which “just happen” in the daily, mundane circumstances of life are the unseen hand of the Lord guiding his people in the choices they freely choose to make and the providential “coincidences” of their lives. The narrator establishes for his readers the time of the story of Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz. This is the time of the Judges. The book of Judges relates the miserable moral and spiritual decline of the nation of Israel. Instead of overcoming the world, Israel is overcome by it, becoming more like their Canaanite neighbors. Instead of proselytizing their neighbors toward faith in the one true God they became more like their neighbors in the worship of false gods. The book of Ruth provides a much needed contrast to Judges. God always has a remnant remaining true to himself in faith and obedience. Not a perfect people, but a faithful people, providing the witness of the blessing gained through faith and obedience to YHWH.

There was a famine in the land Elimelech and his family traveled out of the land of Israel to the land of Moab to find relief from the famine, which may indicate the famine was widespread and man-made. Several commentators associate this famine with the oppression of Israel by the Midianites. Judges chapter six relates how

15

Jackman, Judges, Ruth, 330.

1

Ruth One

the Midianites16 destroyed the “produce of the earth . . . and leave no sustenance for Israel, neither [for] sheep nor ox nor donkey.”17 However, it would not be unusual for one part of a land to experience famine and another be untouched, due to varying rainfall in the mountain-and-valley topography of Israel. Boaz18 may have been a contemporary of Gideon,19 but Boaz was probably born after Gideon saved Israel from the Midianite oppression. If this chronology is correct the famine was localized and Elimelech choose to travel to Moab, a place with a known fertile landscape, rather than go to another part of Israel. Many Israelites must have chosen to emigrate rather than suffer the famine. This is not a blemish on their character. God makes the rain to fall on the godly and ungodly alike (Matthew 5:45). When rain is withheld and famine occurs, it affects the godly and ungodly alike. Part of living in the world is enduring the incidental trials caused by punishments afflicted upon the disobedient and unrighteous. How the believer responds to various trials is a matter of spiritual character. There is nothing wrong with removing oneself from the arena where the worldly suffer: the key thing is to live a godly life wherever one lives. Some lived with the famine, by necessity or by choice, and demonstrated their godliness through the trial. God, who is an ever present help in times of trouble, is well able to sustain his people even through famine. Others chose to remove themselves from the famine and in so doing they remained responsible to live godly lives.

And a certain man The Narrator notes that Elimelech and his family were members of the tribe of Ephraim (Ephrathites) living in Bethlehem, which was in the territory of Benjamin. The significance of this identification to the story is to establish the historicity of Elimelech and his family. Rather than remain in the land, Elimelech (whose name means my God is king) chose to emigrate to the nation of Moab with his family: his wife Naomi and adult sons Mahlon and Chilion. Moab was about 50 miles to the east of Bethlehem (in a direct line), at the southern end and eastern side of the Dead Sea. The path to Moab would have been north from Bethlehem to Jebus (Jerusalem), then the eastern road down the mountain, through Jericho, then south along the eastern side of the Dead Sea into Moab, by foot a journey of about 70 miles and three to four days.20 The decision seemed wise. “Although they would not be Moabite citizens, they would be able to make a living, food would be more plentiful, and no one would stop them from practicing their religion, in what was a syncrestistic society.”21 The most likely location for their new home would be “a fertile plateau about 25 miles wide along (and several thousand feet above) the [Dead] sea’s eastern shore,”22 just south of the area settled by the tribe of Reuben, which was north of the Arnon River. However, was this the best choice? “God sent upon them a temporary trouble, and they fled from it. But when God chastens us in his wisdom, our duty is to yield with contentment and Invaders normally bypassed the mountainous area where Bethlehem sits, Hubbard, Ruth, 85, note 9. One might judge this famine by the standard set in the Word of God. The consequence of worshiping idols and conforming to the world was no rain, which would lead to famine: Leviticus 26:18-20; Deuteronomy 28:23-24. 18 If a date of circa 1188-1148 is posited for the judgship of Gideon, then a date of circa 1155-1140 seems reasonable for the birth of Boaz. Obed’s birth could be circa 1110-1100, and Jesse’s birth circa 1080-1075. These dates fit a date of 1041 for the birth of David, Hollingsworth, Biblical Chronology/Genealogy. 19 Keil and Delitzsch, Ruth, 471. 20 Nelson’s Bible Maps and Charts, 85. 21 Jackman, Judges, Ruth, 317. 22 Hubbard, Judges, Ruth, 86. 16

17

2

Ruth One

submission.”23 Elimelech, rather than endure, took his family into the land of a people who began in incest (Genesis 19), and who were under a curse (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). They resisted Israel in the wilderness (Numbers 22-24), and brought idolatry into the camp (Numbers 25:1-9). If Ruth and Gideon were contemporaries, then Moab had recently oppressed the Israelites (Judges 3:1530). Did Elimelech pray about this decision? Did he ask counsel from the elders of his society? The two events recorded suggest this was not a wise choice: Elimelech left the land of Israel to live in Moab, and he died.

Then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died From the narration it would appear Elimelech died shortly after arriving in Moab (v. 3). In the course of the next ten years sons Mahlon and Chilion also died, leaving Naomi with her two Moabite daughter’s-in-law, Ruth and Orpah. The marriage of Mahlon and Chilion to pagan women speaks volumes about the family’s pragmatic approach to life. To marry is to settle down, to view the place where we are at as the place where we will remain. For the family to escape a severe famine is one thing. Their choice for a new home, however, was among a cursed people, followed by the decision to establish a new family with idolaters. The grace of God brought good out of the relationships (Ruth was saved), but the attitude of the Israelites is in view here, the motives of the heart. Through marriage Mahlon and Chilion committed themselves to life in a pagan land, unequally yoked with unbelievers. The Israelites were not to marry unconverted pagans; the rule of their life was the same as that of the Christian, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, compare Numbers 33. The narrator has a similar view. The marriages of Mahlon and Chilion are not described by the usual Hebrew words for marriage. The expression used, nasa issa, is found nine times in the Old Testament.24 In Judges 21:23 nasa issa describes the act of the tribe of Benjamin forcing the dancers at Shiloh to be their wives. The expression came to be used of illegitimate marriages. Block25 gives four additional reasons identifying these marriages, such as that made with Ruth and Orpah, as opposed to the will of God: • The prohibition against marriage to a pagan, Deuteronomy 7:3-4. • Marriage to foreigners in a land of exile, was a judgment of God, Deuteronomy 28:32. • The marriages did not bare children, another judgment, Deuteronomy 28:18. • Mahlon & Chilion die and the family is left with no heir. Some commentators believe marriage to a Moabite was not forbidden in the Law per Deuteronomy 23:4.26 However, the entire purpose of this and similar prohibitions in Deuteronomy 23 was not focused on race or ethnicity, but to prevent marriages between idolaters and Jews. Mahlon and Chilion sinned by marrying the unconverted idolators Ruth and Orpah, and paid for their sin with a short life. However, we should not forget that this was an Israelite family, whose God was YHWH, and who practiced, even in a land of pagan idolaters, a purer religion that of the Moabites. With a better religion comes a better practice in the matter-of-fact practicalities of life. The family and the marriage had a positive influence on Ruth.

6 23 24 25 26

Then she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return from the country of Moab, for Excell, Ruth, 10. Block, Judges, Ruth, 628. Block, Judges, Ruth, 628. See appendix one.

3

Ruth One

she had heard in the country of Moab that the LORD had visited His people by giving them bread. 7 Therefore she went out from the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her; and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah. 8 And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each to her mother’s house. The LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. 9 “The LORD grant that you may find rest, each in the house of her husband.” Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept. She had heard. . . The LORD had visited His people As happens so often in the book of Judges, one discovers God acting in grace toward his people. The narrator gives no reason to believe the nation Israel had repented—certainly we find no such response from Naomi—but that God had “visited his people,” i.e., had begun to act in grace, mercy and blessing toward Israel. Historically, this could indicate the end of the Midianite oppression and restoration of normal agricultural life in Israel. That Naomi, isolated from friends and relatives in faraway Moab, heard of this event was an act of Jehovah’s grace. The hand of the Lord is in the background in the book of Ruth, but visible to the eyes of faith. In the Hebrew there is a play on words: YHWH supplies bread to Bethlehem; the word Bethlehem means “House of Bread.” The name was well deserved. In addition to barley and wheat, Bethlehem’s fields also supported fig, olive, and almond orchards, and vineyards.27 Having no reason to remain in Moab, and hearing that YHWH has now blessed the land, Naomi begins the return trip to Israel from her house in Moab. Orpah and Ruth go with her. Accompanying Naomi to the border of Moab would be a cultural necessity for Ruth and Orpah, as was Naomi’s parting blessing.28 The most likely route for their trip was the reverse of their earlier journey: north along the eastern side of the Dead Sea, through Jericho, Jebus, and then into Bethlehem.29 They probably joined themselves to one of the trading caravans which plied their trade between Moab and Israel. Naomi’s return to Israel “is a common-sense response to outward circumstances; but spiritually it is a move toward the Lord, not away from Him.”30 Although her words (1:13, 20, 21) may seem bitter and inveigh against YHWH, I believe they are the words of a contrite and humbled heart. “Here is an apt illustration of repentance. Naomi reversed the direction she and her husband had taken.”31 She has paid dearly for her mistakes, she is humbled, and there is in that heart something “God can acknowledge and restore.”32 “That Naomi responded to Yahweh’s gift [of grace in giving them food] also suggests a continuing faith in Yahweh . . . Yahweh’s gracious intervention reminds the reader of his intimate involvement in the lives of his people—and in practical ways too.”33

And Naomi said. . . Go, return each to her mother’s house

27 28

Bromily, Encyclopedia, I: 472. Cook, Ruth, 473.

Nelson’s Bible Maps and Charts, 85. Jackman, Judges, Ruth, 319. 31 Walvoord and Zuck, Commentary, 421. 32 Coates, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 196. 33 Hubbard, Ruth, 100, 101. 29 30

4

Ruth One

Without husbands these women were in desperate circumstances: they could not own property or run a business. In Israel Naomi had some hope of cultural support, as well as dependence upon the Lord’s welfare system for the poor.34 In Moab Orpah and Ruth could count upon support from their families, hence Naomi’s encouragement to them to “return each to her mother’s house,” in effect releasing them to remarry, whereas under Jewish custom there was little hope for them by remaining with Naomi. Some commentators have chastised Naomi for sending Orpah and Ruth back to their false gods. Admittedly there was an opportunity to evangelize, but we must remember that ten years had passed and, to outward appearances, both Ruth and Orpah remained pagans. Perhaps Naomi and her sons were not the best witnesses, but in Bethlehem the two women would be aliens and strangers, rejected by the community for their nationality, pagan beliefs, and religious practices. If there was no response to YHWH after 10 years with a Jewish family, then the best place for Ruth and Orpah was with their own people. This may sound harsh to some, but YHWH has forced a moment of decision: they must believe on YHWH or be left to their false gods. Ruth and Orpah crying is more than just good manners and cultural politeness. They are determined to go with Naomi to her people. “The statement is truly remarkable, for it demonstrates that after all the grief these two young women have shared with their mother-in-law, they are more attached to her than to their own people. They will not ‘return” to their mother’s houses.’35 Perhaps the testimony of Naomi concerning YHWH was more effective than we think?

The LORD deal kindly with you Naomi uses the familiar and important concept of hesed. This word communicates the concepts of “loyalty, reliability, kindness, compassion. Israel associated it with Yehweh’s covenant relationship; that is, despite Israel’s continued tendency toward idolatry and immorality, Yehweh always stood steadfastly with Israel in ‘covenant loyalty.’”36 That Naomi would invoke the Lord’s hesed is no surprise, but that she would do so toward non-Israelites is surprising. Perhaps Orpah and Ruth had become so familiar that she does not think of them as “foreigners,” i.e., nonIsraelites. Certainly there is a deep bond of affection between the three women. Is Naomi able to think of YHWH as acting favorably toward people outside the nation Israel? The request for hesed for Orpah and Ruth introduces one the book’s main themes, God’s continuing presence with his people in blessing and guidance.

The LORD grant that you may find rest Naomi seeks security for Orpah and Ruth. She wants them to find that security which only husband and children could give to a woman in those times. A husband gave immediate security and children would care for them in their old age.37 Naomi seeks “rest” for Orpah and Ruth. The word Naomi uses is menuha. This word is indicates the promised land (Deut 12:9), relief from one’s enemies, or relief from weariness. “In essence, it connotes permanence, settlement, security, and freedom from anxiety after wandering, uncertainty, and pain. It is primarily something which only 34

E. g., Leviticus 19:9, 10; Deuteronomy 19:17-22. Block, Judges, Ruth, 635. 36 Hubbard, Ruth, 104. 37 Caring for Naomi in her old age is one reason Orpah and Ruth insisted on going with Naomi to Bethlehem. Culturally they were required to care for her. 35

5

Ruth One

Yahweh gives. That is why Naomi seeks it from Yahweh.”38 Naomi has faith that YHWH is able to bless Orpah and Ruth wherever they dwell. She knows that Moab is the best place for them. She knows that only in Moab will they find the security that circumstances have denied them. “In spite of all her suffering, she knows that God is love, and so she commits them to him, praying also that they will each find the security and comfort of a new husband and home.”39

10 And they said to her, “Surely we will return with you to your people.” 11 But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? 12 “Turn back, my daughters, go–for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, if I should have a husband tonight and should also bear sons, 13 “would you wait for them till they were grown? Would you restrain yourselves from having husbands? No, my daughters; for it grieves me very much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD has gone out against me!” 14 Then they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. And they said to her What is behind their insistence to remain with Naomi? As noted above, there was the cultural necessity. Marriage changed allegiances from the old family to the new. The wife became the daughter of her new mother-in-law, becoming a part of her husband’s family. A married daughter did not normally return to her old home, unless abandoned (in death or otherwise) by her new family. This may have been especially true in the case of Orpah and Ruth. Because they married outside their “people,” their respective families may have considered them to be as dead. In many cultures, ancient and modern, to marry outside one’s clan, or ethnic group, or nationality, religion, social status, etc., was to be considered as dead to one’s family. In Israel there was an emphasis on not marrying a foreigner, as much to avoid the threat of idolatry as to maintain property within the tribes. Or, there may have been the thought of having to repay the dowry. A dowry is usually money given by the father of the bride to the bride, sometimes to the bride’s husband.40 The money was, in essence, the bride’s security, should the marriage in some way dissolve (divorce or death). If the married woman returned to her father’s home there may be a demand for return of the dowry. Another possible reason was the suspicion culture cast upon the childless widow. They were seen as possible contributors to their husband’s death.41 Though the thought is repugnant to the modern mind, in a patriarchal society women were blamed for many, perhaps any, calamity which befell the family. I am not saying this was God’s will, but rather that sin will corrupt where it can corrupt. More positively, Orpah and Ruth had obviously developed a deep friendship, even a deep love for one another and for Naomi. The extended family tended to live together in those times, often Hubbard, Ruth, 104. Jackman, Judges, Ruth, 320. 40 Versus a “bride price” which was the compensation the future husband paid the family of his future wife. Children are economic assets in agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies, so the loss of a child through marriage must be compensated. The bride-price is also considered a measure of the future husband’s ability (and that of his family, clan, or tribe) to support a wife and family. 41 Keil and Delitzsch, Ruth, 29. 38 39

6

Ruth One

under the same roof. If the Moabite society did disapprove of the marriages then these women depended upon one another for their society, creating a strong sense of sorority among them. To leave would be painful. The influences of culture, friendship, and love conditioned their response to Naomi. They could not leave her and they would not leave her, without some reason which could overcome these forces. Within themselves they needed some reason which would rationally release them from the bonds of family and society.

But Naomi said. . . Turn back, my daughters Naomi cannot fulfill her duty to provide them sons for a future marriage, so she fulfills that duty by sending them to their own people. Naomi too is bound by culture and family. She sees it as her responsibility to ensure her daughters (in-law) have an opportunity for family and security. In the sometimes irrationality which can be caused by intense emotion, Naomi finds herself guilty of failing to provide for the welfare of Orpah and Ruth because her sons died. She cannot personally provide them with new husbands; she is not married, who would marry an old woman, and she cannot bear children even if she was married. No, the only way she can provide for Orpah and Ruth is to send them back to Moab where, with the help of their Moabite families, they can find husbands. Thus she fulfills her duty to her daughters by fulfilling her role as the mother (the “mother’s house”) in arranging for husbands for her daughters (by sending them back to Moab). Ruth and Orpah forcefully protest as Naomi tries to persuade them to return, by explaining the social status her daughters-in-law would hold in Israel. Their prospects in Israel would not be good for remarriage. The women were Moabites, and in all probability none of those in Bethlehem would marry a Moabite woman in the light of the Law. Naomi herself could not do anything to arrange a marriage for them as she was a widow with no husband and no sons and no prospects for either. Their only hope for marriage, according to Naomi, would be for her to remarry and have sons. However, as Naomi explains, what awaited her was life as a poor widow. Without a husband, and no hope of children, Naomi was going home to live in poverty, obscurity, and pity. Even if she should have a husband and more children, would the two young women wait until the children were grown enough to take them in marriage?42 Would Naomi’s sons want to marry two women who would be very old when the sons reached an age for marriage? None of these things seem possible, or even desirable. Naomi’s logic is unassailable. Orpah and Ruth cannot find security and happiness by remaining with her. Naomi’s arguments are not bitterness toward her circumstances, but concern for her daughtersin-law. Thus, she desires to send the women to their homes, to their mother’s house.43 She commends them to the Lord, praying for them, that they might find other husbands (v. 9), to find “rest” in the house of a husband. The word “rest” is the Hebrew menuchah, or “a safe shelter.” “The only place where they could find safety and respect” in their culture “was in the house of a 42 This would not seem to be an argument from the Law of Moses, to wit, the levirate marriage, which required a brother (who had the same father, Deut 25:5-10) of the deceased to marry the widow and produce an heir for the dead husband. Since Elimelech, his brothers (apparently), and his sons are dead, there is no one in the family through whom to raise up a descendent to carry on the name of the deceased. Naomi’s interest is the future security of her daughters-in-law. She provided the first husbands, but her dead womb cannot provide again. 43 Not excluding the father, but because the mother is always the more sympathetic, and because in oriental homes the women usually lived in separate quarters; the father would have seen the daughter’s return as a disgrace–and another mouth to feed.

7

Ruth One

husband. This alone was a woman’s safe shelter from servitude, neglect, or licence.”44 The prospects in their home country were very good, not the least because they were still young (of childbearing age) and were childless. The reference to their mother’s house may refer to “some custom according to which the ‘mother’s house’—probably her bedroom, not a separate building—was the place where marriages were arranged.”45

it grieves me very much for your sakes As a final argument, Naomi looks inward and reminds Ruth and Orpah that, “the hand of the LORD has gone out against me,” referring to the chain of calamities in her life: the famine, her husband’s death, the death of her sons, her current prospects for unalleviated poverty. Idiomatically, Naomi says “‘I am much too bitter for you,’ or, ‘My bitterness is greater than yours.’ Naomi’s disposition toward her lot in life is exposed. Is Naomi “a bitter old woman who blames God for her crises”?46 This is Block’s view, but, as noted above, these are the words of a heart humbled by the judgments God has brought upon her family for their sins. There is a spiritual law of sowing and reaping (Galatians 6:7, 8). The God who brings calamity into one’s life because of sin does so as a chastisement for the good of his children, to bring them back to faithfulness, holiness, and obedience. Naomi is a chastised child, groaning under the weight of God’s justice. Her guilt for failing to provide for her daughters (in-law) brings her grief. Naomi seems a contradiction in faith. One moment she is praying for YHWH to bless Ruth and Orpah (vv. 8, 9). The next she seems to blame YHWH for her problems. Such outcries are not unusual for men and women of faith, and we should be able to recognize ourselves in Naomi. James says blessing and cursing should not come from the same mouth (James 3), but he recognizes that they do. The internal conflict between one’s spiritual nature and sin nature is constant, creating chaos within, causing the believer to own God as the author of both blessing and disaster in one’s life. Spiritual maturity belongs to those whose faith has been exercised by both trials and blessings, enabling the believer to praise God for both (James 1:2ff). Naomi is a believer, perhaps not a mature believer, but a believer nonetheless, smarting under the chastening rod of a loving God. Naomi is going through the process all believers must traverse after sin. When a believer sins, the Holy Spirit is faithful to convict him or her of sin. From conviction comes repentance, then confession. Repentance and confession bring forgiveness, cleansing, and restoration, for God is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The process is painful in the initial stages, for who enjoys facing their sin (conviction), and admitting their sin (confession). But forgiveness brings peace, and forgiveness and restoration return a sense of fellowship with the Lord and a return to usefulness to his cause. Naomi is in the initial, bitter, stage of the process: she is convicted and confessing and requires repentance and restoration. Naomi has done all she can to present the utterly bleak and hopeless circumstances Orpah and Ruth will face if they return with her to Bethlehem. The women are ready to continue to care for their friend and mother-in-law. Perhaps custom is driving them, perhaps loyalty and friendship. Regardless, Naomi must repay their kindness (they remained with her following the death of their husbands) by turning them back to the one place where they have hope of marriage and family, 44 45 46

Baxter, Explore the Book, 36. Hubbard, Ruth, 102. Block, Judges, Ruth, 637.

8

Ruth One

and by invoking the blessings of YHWH for their future.

But Ruth clung to her Orpah is convinced by Naomi’s arguments. “Orpah is a solemn warning, for she seemed to make as good a start as Ruth, but the love that never fails was not there, and she stopped short and went back to her people and her gods; she missed all that Ruth got.”47 Remarriage is first on her mind, and the prospect of being a poor widow in Israel is not what she wants. She loves Naomi, but she is not prepared to face the trials which await her in Bethlehem. She bids Naomi farewell and leaves. Do we judge her too harshly? Orpah’s trust is not in YHWH. Perhaps a different word of faith from Naomi may have changed Orpah’s life. Or perhaps, as Maclaren says, Orpah “is the first in a sad series of those, ‘not far from the kingdom of God,’ who needed but a little more resolution at the critical moment, and, for want of it, shut themselves out from the covenant, and sank back to a world which they had half renounced.”48 Ruth, however, remains. The Hebrew translated “clung to her,” is also found in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” Ruth has made an irrevocable choice to join with Naomi, at the cost of everything in her former life. Through Naomi she has seen and heard God, and therefore must follow Naomi to her land, her people, her God.

15 And she said, “Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” 16 But Ruth said: “Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. 17 Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me.” 18 When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she stopped speaking to her. But Ruth said. . . Wherever you go, I will go Here is one of the clearest examples of faith to be found anywhere in the Bible. Faith requires a departure from everything which is not part of that faith. “A faith which does not relinquish anything and produce a break from former associations is worth nothing.”49 Ruth left all to join Naomi and YHWH. What she eventually gained was far more than what she was leaving. We must evaluate her faith, however, not in what she eventually gained, but in what she lost and gained at this one moment of faith. She lost her past and present. She gained companionship with a poor widow and a relationship with a new God. Her faith, which she undoubtably had learned from Naomi and Mahlon (4:10), had matured to lead her to turn away from everything which had been near and dear, and bind herself to a new home and a new God. What she gained must have seemed so little, at the time, compared to what she had abandoned. Yet, as did Moses, Ruth chose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin” (Hebrews 11:25-26). Beginning in v. 16 Ruth demands Naomi stop trying to dissuade her from 47 48 49

Coates, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 200. Maclaren, Expositions, II: 260. Pink, Gleanings in Joshua, 97.

9

Ruth One

remaining, for she has no intent to abandon her mother-in-law. Rather, “This was in answer to Naomi’s desire, that [Ruth] should return to her people and her gods.”50 Ruth is abandoning her own family, her own people, her false Gods. In a series of short and simple sentences she clearly states her resolve. • I will go with you and remain with you always. • I will become part of your people and worship your God. • I will be always be a part of your family, even in death. Ruth’s profession of love and faith is all the more remarkable in light of Naomi’s strenuous attempts to persuade her to return to Moab. What was the source of this declaration? C. A. Coates notes, “Hers was a purely spiritual affection for that which in widowhood and sorrow had become more to her heart than the people and country and gods of Moab. Spiritual affections—awakened in a heart that had no claim of any kind—led her to break away from everything that was not of God, and to come to take refuge under His wings. In her father-in-law51 she had learned–may we not say–how kingly was Israel’s God, how far above the degraded Chemosh of the Moabites, whose worship consisted in the grossest impurities. In her husband Mahlon she had learned to appreciate a character which became more attractive to her than the arrogance of Moab. . . Then she had learned in Naomi how to value the God-given inheritance by seeing the deep exercises of one who had left it, and who was submitting in sorrow to the action of God’s government, feeling the loss of inheritance, but cherishing in her heart the thought of redemption.”52 Coates may be overstating family influences, but certainly Ruth had discovered some experience of YHWH that lead her to abandon her homeland and its gods. Block writes,53 “With radical self-sacrifice Ruth abandons every base of security that any person, let alone a poor widow, in that cultural context, would have clung too: her native homeland, her own people, even her own gods.”54 I believe Ruth is not calculating her future, rather here is the time and expression of her faith. In contrast to many of the “heroes” of the book of Judges, we find what Maclaren calls the heroism of gentleness. “Is there anything [in Judges] more truly heroic than Ruth’s deed as she turned her back on the blue hills of Moab, and chose the joyless lot of the widowed companion of a widow aged and poor, in a land of strangers, the enemies of her country and its gods?”55 As she learned of YHWH she became a stranger to Moab, and was adopted into a new family, the family of God. Many times Christians are called upon to make sacrifices for their faith. The Apostle Paul was willing to “suffer all things and count them but dung,” that he might serve Christ. This is the course of Christianity in a world that rejects the Savior. Every Christian has opportunities to make that necessary sacrifice which turns the soul from the old, dead world to a new life of faith. All believers are called upon to leave the old life and cling to Jesus in faith. “So a soul that is truly brought to Christ affectionately loves him, and heartily cleaves unto him, resolves in the strength of divine grace to follow him, the Lamb, whithersoever he goes or directs; and is desirous to have communion with none but him, and that he also would not be as a wayfaring man, that tarries but Ridout, Ruth, 19. Ruth 1:3, 4 give the impression Elimelech was dead when Mahlon married Ruth. 52 Coates, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 199. 53 Block views Ruth’s commitment not as a sign of conversion but as “an affirmation of transfer of membership” from Moab to Israel and of allegiance from Chemosh to YHWH. My view is that Ruth experienced a genuine conversion. 54 Block, Judges, Ruth, 641. 55 Maclaren, Expositions, II: 261. 50 51

10

Ruth One

a night; his people are the excellent of the earth, whom to converse with is all his delight and pleasure; and Christ’s God is his God, and his Father is his Father: and, in a word, he determines to have no other Saviour but him, and to walk in all his commands and ordinances.”56 Just as Ruth turned to YHWH and away from her gods, her nation, and her family, even so believers in this New Testament age find they must make similar sacrifices for their faith in and love toward Christ. Ruth sacrificed all things for the sake of her love for Naomi, and gained all things as she accepted Naomi’s God as her God. To love is both to receive and to give: as we give ourselves to another, in the act of giving we claim for our own that to which we have given ourselves. When we love sin, we give ourselves to sin and receive sin and death unto ourselves. When the object of our love is Christ, in giving ourselves to him we receive from him light and life and love. Orpah’s heart was set on personal gain (marriage) and her love for Naomi was not strong enough to lead her to Naomi’s God. The object of Ruth’s affection was Naomi, “Ruth’s love for dead husband’s aged mother is as pure as gold and as strong as death. Many waters cannot quench Ruth’s love. And her confession of love, when she is constrained to confess it, is the most beautiful confession of love in the whole world . . . Ruth’s heart was so full of the cords of love to Naomi that those strong cords drew her out of the land of Moab and knit her deep into the lineage of Israel, and into the ancestry of Jesus Christ.”57 In loving Naomi, Ruth willingly gave herself to YHWH, rejecting the false god of Moab, and claiming YHWH as her personal God. “Whatever the origin of her faith, it was genuine and robust enough to bear the strain of casting Chemosh and the gods of Moab behind her, and setting herself with full purpose of heart to seek the Lord.”58 Ruth seals her commitment with an oath, “The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me.” This a common form of oath in ancient times and is found many times throughout the Old Testament. In essence Ruth calls upon YHWH to judge her should she turn away from Naomi. This is a life time commitment, meaning she will not return to Moab even after Naomi’s death; she will remain an Israelite by faith in YHWH. Note she uses the word YHWH (LORD) rather than the more common adonai, or Lord, or even the common term for god, El. “It was thus real faith which made use of the covenant name YHWH, which expressed itself in Ruth’s reply.”59 She knows of whom she speaks and believes. She has heard the call of YHWH. All doubts about her new life, all longings for the old, are vanished as she listens to her faith: “This is the way, walk ye in it.” “The . . . great truth which the book of Ruth illustrates so dramatically is the power of choice and decision. Ruth chose definitely and forever the people of God . . . Ruth stands for those whose decision is final and irrevocable. There is no turning back, no backward look even, toward Moab, toward the life of the world. There she stands on the bank of the river Jordan, with her back to Moab, and on her lips that grand decision and choice, ‘Whither thou goest, I will go; . . . thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.”60 Have you taken that first step into the Christian life? Turn with Ruth from false gods and worldly choices and choose Jesus Christ and eternal life. When the Narrator reports that Naomi “stopped speaking” to Ruth, it does not mean a sullen silence lasting the journey to Bethlehem. Rather, it means Naomi accepts Ruth’s confession of love and faith. The two continue on their way, undoubtably in conversation, perhaps rejoicing, certainly 56 57 58 59 60

Gill, Ruth, 12. Whyte, Bible Characters, I: 201, 202. Maclaren, Expositions, II: 263. Ridout, Ruth, 19. McCartney, Great Women, 20.

11

Ruth One

planning for their future. Naomi knew she might still have a near kinsman in Bethlehem—one whom she could rightfully marry—who might be willing to marry Ruth.

19 Now the two of them went until they came to Bethlehem. And it happened, when they had come to Bethlehem, that all the city was excited because of them; and the women said, “Is this Naomi?” 20 But she said to them, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. 21 “I went out full, and the LORD has brought me home again empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the LORD has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?” 22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. Now they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest. They came to Bethlehem The town of Bethlehem turns out at Naomi’s return, but it is chiefly the women (the Hebrew “they” is feminine, thus the NKJV translation “the women.”) who were the most excited. They undoubtably remembered the departure of the Elimelech family, and now Naomi returns, without husband or sons, and with a foreign woman. Although Maclaren feels the women express a lack of sympathy because no food is brought and no shelter offered,61 it is perhaps better to note the Narrator concentrates on human interaction and ignores smaller details which do not advance or contribute to his story. Their curiosity and sympathy were aroused at the sight of Naomi. When saying, “Is this Naomi?” they are not questioning her identity, but her miserable condition. “Time and sorrow have wrought their cruel work. Care makes men and women grow old very fast.”62 One also assumes Naomi and Ruth looked weary; they were women traveling alone; their clothes were dirty, and Ruth’s clothes may have reflected cultural differences between Moab and Israel.

Call me Mara For her part Naomi feels the bitterness of her losses and expresses herself in a suitable fashion. The name “Naomi” means “gracious,” or “pleasant,” but because of her calamities she is now “Mara,” that is, “the bitter one.” Naomi does not use the covenant name YHWH, but the name “Almighty.” “She calls him by that dread name which emphasizes his power rather than his love and care.”63 “This great God could not be resisted. The disaster he sent could not be averted. Naomi had such faith in God and his personal involvement in her life that she knew the bitter things she experienced were from him. Her grief was real; obviously she took God seriously.”64 In naming herself “Mara” Naomi does not mean she was bitter against the Lord, but that she had experienced bitterness at the hand of the Lord. Naomi is not charging God as being criminally responsible for her losses. She is not blaming God for her sorrows in the sense that God is the cause, for she knows the causes well enough: her husband left Israel to dwell in the land of a cursed people; her sons married women of that land in express disobedience to Jehovah’s law; 61 62 63 64

Maclaren, Expositions, II: 266. Excell, Ruth, 37. Ridout, Ruth, 20. Walvoord and Zuck, Commentary, 421.

12

Ruth One

Naomi was an accomplice in breaking that law as she followed her husband and blessed the marriage of her sons. Naomi says “I went out full,” indicating her leaving was voluntary. But, “YHWH” brought her home again. “Self-will took her away: grace brought her home . . . We would never come back ourselves. It is only the power of unchanging grace that restores the wanderer.”65 That act of self-will caused her to be brought home empty. “Nor could we be brought back in any other condition than empty. There must be the brokenness suggested by that, to make the soul willing to yield to God’s love.”66 Naomi knows “the Lord has testified against her,” i.e., against the sins of herself and her family. “Under the dealings of God exercises were produced in the soul of Naomi—a deep sense of what had been lost, and of the hand of God upon her. Such exercises as these are necessary before restoration can come about.”67 What happened was to be expected, but it still hurts the heart. Truth and justice are often very bitter pills to swallow, and the pain caused by disobedience is very hard to bear. God and his Law, however, will be justified against the sinner and will then raise up the contrite and repentant. “The Lord has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me.” Naomi “consciously places all her pain, bitter experiences and hopelessness within the structure of God’s sovereignty, and she leaves the explanation and responsibility with him.”68 This is neither blame toward YHWH, nor escapism by Naomi. God is the context in which the life of faith is lived. When sin stands between the soul and its Savior, then chastisement is sure to follow: the Lord testifies against me and afflicts me because of my sin and for my restoration.

So Naomi returned Perhaps it is indicative of the time in which Naomi lived—the times of the Judges—that she did not know, or had forgotten, the Lord’s promises concerning widows: • Exodus 22:22-23, “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry.” • Deuteronomy 10:18,“He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing.” • Deuteronomy 27:14,19, “And the Levites shall speak with a loud voice and say to all the men of Israel, ‘Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’” But she certainly knew Deuteronomy 24:19, and 25:5-9, and therein hangs the rest of the tale. • “When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands,” • Deuteronomy 25:5-9, “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders, and 65 66 67 68

Walvoord and Zuck, Commentary, 421. Walvoord and Zuck, Commentary, 421. Coates, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 197. Jackman, Judges, Ruth, 323.

13

Ruth One

say, ‘My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him; and if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house.’”

Now they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest. Notice again the unseen, providential and guiding hand of YHWH. If Ruth and Naomi had been selecting a time for their return they could not themselves have selected a better time. Ruth and Naomi “just happened” to return at the right time. Their arrival was timed by the Lord. He brought word to them of the end of the famine. Though widowed and poor, they came to Bethlehem at a time when they could find food available for poor widows. In verse 22 the narrator sums up the events so far, concluding the first part of the story. The announcement of the barley harvest notifies the reader familiar with the Law to anticipate the course events will take in the second part of this story. The barley harvest takes place in April and May69 (the wheat harvest is in May and June). Ruth and Naomi will be required to glean their meals from some farmer’s field. Life has been full of bitterness. Will YHWH now turn from chastisement to blessing? We shall discover this in part two of the story of Ruth the Moabitess. It is time to follow the harvesters of the barley crop and glean barley from the fields.

69

Wight, Manners and Customs, 178, 179.

14

Ruth Two

1 There was a relative of Naomi’s husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech; his name was Boaz. 2 So Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, “Please let me go to the field, and glean heads of grain after him in whose sight I may find favor.” And she said to her, “Go, my daughter.” 3 Then she left, and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers. And she happened to come to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. There was a relative of Naomi’s husband The narrator tells the reader what he must know to understand the next events in the story of Ruth and Boaz. The family “politics” of the situation, though well-understood by all involved, are complicated. Elimelech had a relative in Bethlehem, a wealthy man named Boaz. It seems likely that neither Boaz nor the nearer relative (4:12) were brother or half-brother to Elimelech. Neither took direct action to relieve the poverty of Naomi and Ruth by bringing them into their household. The more likely relationship is that the nearer relative was Elimelech’s nephew through a brother, now dead, and Boaz was a nephew through Elimelech’s sister, probably also dead, or Boaz was a cousin to Elimelech. Other family permutations are possible. As a relative of Elimelech Boaz is qualified, Leviticus 25:23-28, to redeem Elimelech’s land. Naomi undoubtedly knew of Boaz as a member of her husband’s family. Additionally, the Hebrew translated “relative” could also be translated “friend,” indicating a personal relationship. Regardless, the relationship between Naomi and Boaz becomes significant when his interest in Ruth leads to marriage. As the story progresses, one sees how both Naomi and Boaz guided Ruth through the family politics. Naomi was aware that Boaz was qualified to be the redeemer (2:20), but apparently hesitated to approach Boaz (or the nearer relative) to ask for redemption of her land. Naomi’s hesitation may have stemmed from Deuteronomy 25:5-10. That passage requires a brother of the deceased to marry his brother’s widow, have a child, and raise that child in the name of and for the dead husband. In relation to the redemption of the land, there seems to have been an assumption on the part of all involved that the qualification for redemption extended across the family tree to the nearest male relative. If Elimelech’s brothers were dead, which seems likely, then the next nearest relative, a nephew or a cousin, could perform the redemptive act. This seems to have been the practice as one compares 2:1 with 3:12. This same assumption seems to have obligated the redeemer to perform the levirate marriage of Deuteronomy 25:5-10. If such were Naomi’s thoughts, then she was hesitant because she was not able to bear any children. Should Boaz or the nearer relative redeem Elimelech’s sold land and marry Naomi, then the family land that once belonged to Elimelech would be lost through the absence of an heir. Though one may only speculate, this does provide a rational reason why Naomi chose to live in poverty rather than ask Boaz to marry her and redeem the land. Ruth, however, was of childbearing age, and as wife to Elimelech’s (now dead) son, she could legally bear an heir to inherit the redeemed land. Should Boaz, or the nearer relative, redeem the land and marry Ruth, then Elimelech’s inheritance would be assured through the first-born child of Ruth. However, there was a roadblock in the way, Ruth was a Moabite. Naomi probably believed a direct approach was impossible, or at the least unwise. Such an approach could raise ethical questions about motives. Should Naomi approach Boaz, or the unnamed nearer relative, with a proposition to marry Ruth, she might be rejected, worse her reputation might suffer, and her last state would be worse that the first. 15

Ruth Two

The “politics” of the situation would not be lost on the Hebrew readers of this story. This is the kind of social intrigue which people today find in romance novels. In the time of David the king it would have added great interest to the story, by which the unknown author would have captured the imagination and attention of his audience. Naomi was in what might be called a “catch-22" situation. She must marry in order to relieve their poverty and ensure their future, but for her to marry doomed the future inheritance of her family. The only solution was for one of the near relatives to develop a romantic interest in Ruth and, through her, rescue Naomi and the family inheritance. Ruth was kept blissfully unaware of the drama. The villagers must have watched with great interest; the gossip mills would be running hot. We should place ourselves in Naomi’s sandals. How would she react to this situation? She could not take direct action, whether by herself or through Ruth. Should she instruct Ruth then Ruth’s actions would be forced, not innocent. Even if she guided Ruth to a certain field for gleaning, should the relative discover Naomi’s influence (How did you come to my field? Naomi told me to glean here.), he might feel manipulated, or perhaps forced, into marrying this Moabite woman. No, the circumstances must be natural and innocent of any scheming. Naomi told Ruth to go and glean, but the rest was left to chance. Did I say chance? The rest was left to God. Finding myself in Naomi’s sandals, I come to the throne of grace for guidance and providential circumstances. There was only one person to whom Naomi could turn for help: YHWH. She prayed for one of the near relatives to meet Ruth, develop a romantic interest in her, and marry her. Chapter 2:20 may express this confidence in YHWH. The interest the Narrator shows in Boaz, by informing his readers of the family relationship, indicates the part Boaz is to play in this drama under the guidance of the Lord.

a man of great wealth The mention of Boaz’s “great wealth”70 is probably more than a notification to the reader that Boaz is able to redeem the land. There is a contrast between the family of Elimilech and Boaz. Elimelech left Bethlehem to escape the famine, but he returned empty, in the person of Naomi. Boaz remained in Bethlehem, endured the famine, and has since prospered materially, being made full by God. The difference between the faithful and unfaithful, the obedient and disobedient, is the blessing given by YHWH. Great events turn upon the hinges of providence, which are the “just happened” moments in the book of Ruth. When Ruth went out to glean that morning, and looked out over the fields where the reapers were at work, she could not have said why she turned to the left or right and chose the field belonging to Boaz. To Ruth it was only chance and coincidence, but the Lord was with her. YHWH guided her footsteps that morning.71 Ruth “just happens” to glean in a field which “just happens” to belong to a relative, who “just happens” to be wealthy enough to redeem the land, and “just happens” to take a romantic interest in Ruth. Boaz “just happens” to be a very godly man: a perfect mate for a godly woman. Those who believe the book of Ruth was written to justify the reign of some king far in the future from Ruth and Boaz miss the point. Here is genuine providence working for the good of God’s people. Here is a personal God 70

The Hebrew term has a range of interpretations. In Judges 6:12 it is used of Gideon as “mighty man of valor.” Boaz is, obviously, not a military man as was Gideon. Here the context demands Boaz to be “a man of substance” or, as the translation has it, “a man of great wealth.” He was a man of standing within the community, with lands and servants. The term can also mean “noble with respect to character,” which fairly describes Boaz; Block, Judges and Ruth, 651. 71 McCartney, Great Women, 18.

16

Ruth Two

interacting with his people, who by faith expect him to bring blessing into their lives. Either the “just happened” events are made-up coincidences for some literary purpose, or the Narrator is reporting genuine historical events that reveal the purposes of God. I choose the latter. New Testament believers have faith that God in Christ is always at work in the lives of his children to do them good through the circumstances of daily life. Old Testament historical events, such as that recorded in the book of Ruth, illustrate the will of God, and convince the believer that he or she may “cast all our care upon him, because he cares for us.”

So Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi “Ruth made an unexpected announcement: I am going to the fields. The statement’s abruptness suggests that virtually no time has passed since the arrival of Naomi and Ruth (1:1922). Thus, Ruth passed up all recuperation from the trip in order to take advantage of the short harvest season.”72 Whether or not Ruth knew of her legal right to glean, or if she was acting in accordance with an ancient custom used in other countries, is unknown, just as it cannot be known if Naomi, subtly or overtly, suggested gleaning to Ruth. Despite the danger to herself (a Moabitess alone in the fields) Ruth goes to glean. “At first it seemed as if they were to remain desolate and uncared for, but fortunately it was the harvest time, and the golden sheaves were being gathered in. Naomi and Ruth must live, and Ruth, with her characteristic thoughtfulness, knew her aged mother-in-law was not able to work.”73 As was proper, Ruth being the younger in the relationship, she asks permission74 of Naomi to glean grain from the fields being harvested. Gleaning was part of God’s welfare plan for Israel: • Leviticus 19:9-10, “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. “And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” • Deuteronomy 24:19-21, “When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. “When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.” This welfare plan for the poor in Israel gave them the dignity of working for their sustenance. It also allowed the farmer to give according to his ability and according to his compassion and faith. Some “hard-hearted farmers and reapers threw obstacles in the way of the poor, and even forbade their gleaning altogether.”75 This may be why Ruth says that she will glean in the fields of “him in whose sight I may find favor.” Gleaning was hard labor. The poor picked the stalks of grains from the ground where they had fallen from the hands of the reapers. Hubbard notes “since prudent reapers worked carefully, the Hubbard, Ruth, 136. Lockyer, All the Women, 47. 74 “Although recent commentators have tended to understand the construction ekela-na, ‘Let me go,’ as an expression of firm resolve, the NIV and most other translations rightly interpret her speech as a polite request.” Block, Judges, Ruth, 652. 75 Keil and Delitzsch, Ruth, 477. 72 73

17

Ruth Two

gleaning of fallen grain was mere subsistence living, much like trying to eke out survival today by recycling aluminum cans.”76 The corners of the field (Leviticus 19:9; 23:22) were to be left unreaped for the gleaners, by means of which God added to their “subsistence living.” However, the farmers were under no obligation to provide a drink of water, food, or even shelter from the late spring sun. The size of the “corner” was left to the discretion, and charity, of the farmer. Ruth asks to go to the “field” singular. The term refers to the “cultivated ground”77 around the village which was used for agricultural production. The individual plots of land in the village field—the land that was owned by an individual—were not kept separated by hedges or fences, and might not be contiguous. “The boundary between [individually owned plots of land] is indicated by heaps of small stones, or sometimes by single upright stones, placed at intervals of a rod78 or more from each other.”79 Deuteronomy 19 and 27 speak of these stones as the “landmarks” which separated one inheritance, a specific part of the larger field, from another. Ruth went to the village field and came to that smaller part of the (village) field belonging to Boaz. The process of reaping the grain was laborious, and two different types of work were called for. First the stalks of grain were cut off close to the ground. The (male) reaper would grasp the stalk in one hand (usually the left) and cut the stalk with the sickle held in the other hand. The reapers carried the cut stalks under one arm until the burden became too large, at which time they were laid on the ground. The loose bundles were gathered and tied together by the women. Sometimes one or more stalks, or perhaps individual ears of grain, were dropped in the process of reaping or in tying them into bundles. The stalks or ears which fell to the ground were to be left for the gleaners. Those who gleaned grain were the poorest of people. They usually followed immediately behind the reapers (or as close as allowed). The work was labor intensive for everyone involved. The laws concerning gleaning required the farmer to leave the “corners” of his land unharvested and not to pick up that which was dropped during the harvest. The Mosaic law did not define the size of the corner, nor the size of what was to be left (by the reapers) if dropped. (Later Jewish legislation did define these parameters, to the benefit of the farmer, not the poor.80) The stranger (alien, foreigner), widow, and fatherless were qualified by their social status to glean the fields. Ruth qualified on two counts, but her status as a foreigner, a Moabite, also worked against her. Thus the necessity to glean after (a reaper) “in whose sight I may find favor,” for everyone in the village knew she was “Ruth the Moabitess,” as the narrator is careful to remind the reader. Ruth, not the narrator, notes the need for “favor.” Does this arise out of her infant faith in YHWH? One may assume she had become aware of the Lord’s provision for the poor, widow, and stranger, else why go to the fields to glean?81 Not every farmer was willing to follow the law. Ruth needed the favor of the reaper (or owner); shouldn’t the reader also believe she sought the favor of YHWH? God’s provision comes to pass through God’s providence. “Ruth in proposing to go and glean showed that she had laid hold of the thoughts of Divine favour which were in the heart of the God Hubbard, Ruth, 138. Harris, et al, Theological Wordbook, article 2236. 78 About 16.5 feet. 79 Morrison, Ruth, 30. 80 “The later Jews had a set of fantastic bye-laws concerning gleaning, detailed by Maimonides. One of them was, that if only one or two stalks fell from the sickle or the hand of the reaper, these should be left lying for the gleaners; but if three stalks fell, then the whole of them belonged to the proprietor,” Morrison, Ruth, 30. 81 Allowing the poor to glean may have been a custom with the pagans also, but it was a law in Israel, and was extended to those not of the house of Israel, the foreigner. Whether she learned from Naomi, or the village women, or from observation, she became aware of her right to glean. 76 77

18

Ruth Two

of Israel towards even a ‘stranger.’”82

And she happened to come Literally, “and her chance chanced upon the allotted portion of the field of Boaz” (compare 1 Samuel 6:9). “In this context the narrator pointedly draws attention to Ruth’s chance arrival at a field of Boaz with the redundant phrase ‘her chance chanced upon.’ which in modern idiom would be rendered ‘by a stroke of luck.’ Though many will balk at this interpretation, this must be recognized as one of the key statements of the book . . . .This is . . . a deliberate rhetorical device on the part of the narrator. By excessively attributing Ruth’s good fortune to chance, he forces the reader to sit up and take notice, to ask questions concerning the significance of everything that is transpiring. The statement is ironical; its purpose is to undermine purely rational explanations for human experiences and to refine the reader’s understanding of providence. In reality he is screaming, ‘See the hand of God at work here!’ The same hand that had sent the famine (1:1) and later provided food (1:6), is the hand that had brought Naomi and Ruth to Bethlehem precisely at the beginning of the harvest (1:22) and has now guided Ruth to that portion of the field belonging specifically to Boaz.”83 Believers today, having been instructed through the story of Ruth, should be open to the circumstances in their lives; watched more closely they might find God at work. Though some might call it chance, the eyes of faith will understand that the Lord guided Ruth’s steps. She did not know of a man named Boaz, and, as far as we know, Naomi did not tell her of the possibility of this near relation living in Bethlehem (cf. 2:20). She went out to the fields and found herself working hard in the field of Boaz, from the early morning until the middle or late morning. The believing reader also finds the grace of God at work. Ruth has nothing but that which divine favor gives, which is grace. Ruth the Moabitess is a “stranger and foreigner” from the “household of God.” Yet, by grace through faith she is admitted into that household; by grace she is allowed to glean; through grace she is providentially guided to one who is both qualified and willing to lift her out of her poverty and hopelessness. Ruth seeks favor; God gives of it freely to his children. However, providence does not work apart from the believer’s active cooperation. Even though the Lord guides her steps, he does not prevent her from the hard work required to glean the grain. The Lord works through the circumstances of our lives, not around them, nor because of them: nor does he specifically create them. Ruth and Naomi were poor because their husbands were dead; their husbands died because of disobedience to God’s command. The circumstances were set into motion by an act of sinful disobedience; but the Lord God arranges all things to work together for good to all who love him, to those are the called according to his purpose. Ruth, the victim of circumstances caused by the disobedience of others, and thus captive to the mundane problems of her life, responds with a right attitude and righteous works, by using the appointed means to help herself and Naomi. Here is where God steps in and guides Ruth to the right field and the right man. God doesn’t work outside the normal events of one’s life, but he is always there working. The believer’s part in this life is the same as Ruth’s: do what is right. It was right, in the sense of righteous, for Ruth to go out and work hard in the fields on behalf of herself and Naomi. It was right, in the sense of proper and polite, for Ruth to ask permission to glean (v. 7). Ruth did what was right; God blessed her according to his promises. The narrator reminds his readers of the significance of Boaz to Naomi and Ruth. Boaz is “of the 82 83

Coates, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 203. Block, Judges, Ruth, 653, 654.

19

Ruth Two

family of Elimelech.” Two times in the first three verses of this chapter the family connection is stated. The reader’s interest has been piqued. How will they meet? What will happen? Is there a future relationship for Ruth and Boaz? Will Boaz follow family loyalties and duties? The reader rushes forward to discover the answers.

4 Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said to the reapers, “The LORD be with you!” And they answered him, “The LORD bless you!” 5 Then Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers, “Whose young woman is this?” 6 So the servant who was in charge of the reapers answered and said, “It is the young Moabite woman who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab. 7 “And she said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves.’ So she came and has continued from morning until now, though she rested a little in the house.” Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said “In Anglo-Saxon lands the name of God is seldom mentioned in daily conversation except by those who are profane. But among the Arabs of Bible lands, God’s name is constantly on the lips of these people.”84 This manner of speaking is exampled in various scriptures, such as James 4:15, and Psalm 129:8. Although continuous use may become mere formality, in the context of the book of Ruth it reflects “the state of religious feeling among the rural population of Israel at that time, as well as the artless, happy, and unsuspecting simplicity which characterized the manners of the people.”85 One may learn much of Boaz in this simple exchange and these few verses. Boaz was a wealthy man (2:1), and as such had many people who worked for him and depended upon him (Ecclesiastes 5:11, “When goods increase, they are increased that eat them”). Boaz could not directly manage the large number of hired workers, so he had appointed one worker as the supervisor of the reaping crew in this field. Wealthy men are busy men, and Boaz probably had more than one field, plus the public life that always presses upon men of wealth. But see how he takes the time to meet with them, and his care and respect for his laborers, indicating the character of the man. “He came himself to his reapers, to see how the work went forward . . . and it was also for the encouragement of his servants, who would go on the more cheerfully in their work when their master countenanced them so far as to make them a visit.”86 Boaz was a humble man, “he did not think it below him to go into his field, and look after his servants, which was highly commendable in him, and which showed his diligence and industry, as well as his humility.”87 There are two types of wealthy men: those whose goal is to have more, and those whose goal is to share what they have been given. Boaz was a man who served God, not mammon. One sees no hint of a man who drives his servants to make more, or visits them at work only to berate them for their efforts; nor does one find his servants resentful, speaking ill of their master behind his back. Rather, they express kindness and respect toward one another, and pray for God’s blessings to fall upon one another. The greeting of Boaz to his reapers is very godly and very like a genuine Israelite. This same Old Testament was a part of the theology of Paul the Apostle. “In Christ,” he Wight, Manners and Customs, 86. Jamieson, et al, Commentary, 203. 86 Henry, Commentary, II: 262. Henry’s comments are made more pertinent in that he lived in the predominantly agrarian society of the 1600's. 87 John Gill, Ruth, 18. 84 85

20

Ruth Two

said, “there is neither free nor slave.” The blessings of a relationship with God tend to equalize relationships between men. Though Boaz was the owner and the reapers his employees, this was merely their respective positions in Israelite society. Their common faith made them brothers in the Lord and each treated the other accordingly. Matthew Poole observes, “They expressed and professed their piety, even in their civil [public] conversation and worldly transactions.”88 This may have been a greeting commonly used during the harvest time.89 To Boaz and the workers their mutual greetings conveyed the sense of the presence of YHWH in their midst to bless them (cf. Judges 6:16). Viewed from the perspective of the narrator it is intended to convey the same sense to the reader. YHWH is present, unseen but active, in bringing Ruth and Boaz together.

“Whose young woman is this?” As with Ruth “just happening” to come to the field of the near kinsman, even so Boaz “just happens” to come to the field where Ruth is gleaning. The Hebrew text conveys the sense that Boaz arrived some time after Ruth, as does the sequence of events (the supervisor has time to form an opinion; Ruth has been there since morning; Boaz invites her to lunch). The providential work of YHWH is on display. Those who trust in the Lord know that he directs their path (Proverbs 3:6). Ruth could have been anywhere within the boundaries of the field, but she was close enough for Boaz to identify her as someone unknown to him. Interestingly, this also speaks to the character of Boaz, for why would a wealthy man have any attention to the poor? The godly man treats others as he himself would be treated; he is of a humble soul and knows that “but for the grace of God,” he would be poor, eking out a living gleaning the leftovers of another. What was it about Ruth that caught Boaz’s attention? Perhaps her clothes identified her as of another nation, but that seems unlikely.90 Women are sensitive to modes of dress, and Ruth would have been very poor indeed if she had not begun to dress as the other village women; nor is she likely to have continued to draw attention to the fact that she was a Moabite. The more likely explanation is that, in a small village, where everybody knows everybody, Boaz “recognized” Ruth as someone he did not know. He had heard of the foreigner who came to town with Naomi (v. 11). His curiosity was piqued by this news and the sight of the unknown woman aroused that curiosity. Based upon later verses in the book, one can say that Boaz found the stranger in the field (Ruth) to be physically attractive, and a man’s eye is always caught by feminine beauty. Finally, it is very likely that Boaz knew all the women working in his fields, because some were servants in his own household, and some he had hired for the harvest. The question, “Whose young woman is this,” is perhaps one of surprise. An old woman alone in the fields would indicate a widow. A very young teenager would be part of a poor family scattered over the field, gleaning for their living. A young woman of marriageable age would be accompanied by a husband, brother, or father as she gleaned. A young woman alone was unexpected and attracted attention. Was this someone’s else’s hired servant, or was she the unknown wife, sister, or daughter of a village resident–hardly likely to be unknown in a small town. Or was this the Moabite stranger he had heard of? Has the narrator framed the question “Whose young woman is this?” in such a way as to Poole, Commentary, I: 508. See Hubbard, Ruth, 143, 144. 90 The supervisor might have recognized her as Moabite, or as a foreigner, from her accent, and may have asked her name; or Ruth may have volunteered her association with Naomi as a means to gain access to the field. 88 89

21

Ruth Two

suggest Ruth’s availability for marriage? The Hebrew word hanna‘ ara means both young woman and female servant. “One must concede, however, that the question is ambiguous. Since na‘ ara can mean “marriageable young woman,” did the narrator thereby intend to induce speculation on Boaz’s interest in Ruth’s marriageability? Does the ambiguity reveal suppressed curiosity on his part? How cleverly the narrator ensnared his audience in its own curiosity!”91 The foreman’s answer indicates a conversation with Ruth; more than just permission to glean. He too was curious about this stranger, and took advantage of his position to do some “gleaning” of his own in the way of information. His answer to Boaz indicates Naomi was well known in the town as the woman who had went into Moab, returned as a widow and impoverished, accompanied by a member of a nation proscribed by YHWH. One may assume that Ruth’s declaration of faith (1:16, 17) was also wellknown in the town (2:11). The Hebrew text draws attention to Boaz’s age. The word used for servant is not the one specifically meaning a bondman or servant, but one meaning a young man. The servant was younger than Boaz. The same is true in v. 8, where Boaz calls Ruth “my daughter.” Ruth would be in her mid to late twenties. Boaz is probably in his mid to late forties. The age difference is significant in 3:10.

And she said, ‘Please let me glean There is nothing in the Law of Moses which required a gleaner to ask permission to glean. However, as Ruth noted, she must “glean after him in whose sight I may find favor.” As with any commandment, there were those who obeyed God and those who rebelled. How does one find the place of blessing in YHWH? Ask. There is, in Ruth’s statement (2:2), the underlying thought of prayer to God. How will Ruth find an answer to prayer? How will Ruth identify the place where she might find “favor” with God and man? The simplest means was to ask permission to glean until she found “him in whose sight I may find favor.” Was Boaz’s servant the first she asked, or the last in a series? The reader cannot know, nor does it matter. What does matter is Ruth’s example. She took that shortest distance between prayer and answer, which is actively seeking the thing she had prayed for. Too often believers ask and wait (though sometimes waiting is needful) rather than ask and do. If one asks God to bless in employment, then he or she must go to work in order to receive the asked for blessing. To be blessed, one must be found in the place of blessing, and must be living in a way that can be blessed. Ruth looked to the Lord for an answer, then went out and actively looked for the Lord’s answer. Such is the way of prayer. Was her prayer answered by the foreman, or by Boaz? Put differently, did the foreman immediately give Ruth permission to glean? Or did he advise her to wait until the owner came to the field? The answer lies in a very difficult text. The Hebrew text literally reads “this [masculine gender] her sitting/dwelling the house (a) little.” The translation of the verse is unsure, as the multiplied versions and explanations testify. Block92 states the text is “unquestionably the most difficult line in the book.” • Hubbard translates, “She came and has stood here waiting from early morning until now. This field has been her residence; the house has meant little to her.” By “house” Hubbard supposes the house in the city where Ruth and Naomi dwell. • Block translates, “She went into the field and has worked steadily from morning till now, 91 92

Hubbard, Ruth, 146, 147. Hubbard, Ruth, 146, 147.

22

Ruth Two

except for a short rest in the shelter.” By “shelter” Block supposes a place in the field where the reapers may rest and eat lunch. The various translations read: • KJV So she came and hath continued even from the morning until now, that she tarried a little in the house. • NKJV So she came and has continued from morning until now, though she rested a little in the house. • ASV So she came, and hath continued even from the morning until now save that she tarried a little in the house. • NASV Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she has been sitting in the house for a little while. • NIV She went into the field and has worked steadily from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter. • Jerusalem So she came and has been on her feet from morning until now. Bible • Lamsa93 So she has been gleaning from the morning until the time of rest. The question of a correct translation cannot be answered with certainty at this distance (in time) from the events. The narrator’s original audience undoubtably knew exactly what was meant. One can, however, make an interpretive choice. Ruth was looking for someone with whom she could find favor. Getting a daily measure of food for herself and Naomi was vitally important. If one foreman did not give her permission to immediately begin gleaning, then she would have went to the next field seeking that favor. The more likely translation is that the foreman did give Ruth permission to glean, and she had been gleaning from early morning until the time Boaz appeared in the field. Sometime during the morning, or perhaps at the time Boaz was visiting, she had rested a little in the shelter provided for the workers. The foreman would be close to the reapers, and thus close to Ruth, when Boaz appeared. Ruth had came to the field of Boaz, early in the morning, as guided by the Lord. She had asked permission to glean and permission was given. She had worked hard all morning. Ruth was probably unaccustomed to the hard labor required to glean in the fields. As wife to Mahlon her duties would have been in the home and garden, hard work for sure, but such work is not the same as continuously bending over and picking up grain in the hot sun. So, she rested for a short while, probably about mid-morning, in the small shelter or hut the workers used for their noon meal. She then returned to the field and continued to glean. She had returned to the field when Boaz came, probably a little while before lunch, and Boaz saw her hard at work. These thoughts answer all the questions posed by the difficult text.

8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, “You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women. 9 “Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them. Have I not commanded the young men not to touch you? And when you are thirsty, go to the vessels and drink from what the young men have drawn.” Only the Lord and Boaz know the true reason Ruth attracted his attention. However, the possibilities are worth exploring for the insight one might gain into the human heart. The events of chapter three, support the probability that Boaz felt an immediate attraction to Ruth; an 93

Lamsa, The Holy Bible From Ancient Near Eastern Manuscripts.

23

Ruth Two

attraction which could lead to love and marriage. Many things go into the recipe for true biblical love, and Ruth had already demonstrated that she believed and practiced the same things Boaz believed in and practiced, such as kindness, compassion, faith, loyalty, responsibility, honesty and integrity. A physical attraction is likely the first cause. Boaz saw the young woman, identified her as a stranger, and then gave her a second look. Bethlehem was a small community, Ruth was new in town, and visually appealing, so a casual physical attraction would have been a normal male reaction. For those reasons that one person is attracted to another, Boaz was attracted to Ruth. Boaz may have also acted out of kindness and righteousness toward a stranger. Acts of kindness toward strangers are directed by Scripture. Here was an opportunity to honor YHWH by helping a stranger. Being a righteousness man, here was an opportunity to be zealous in a good work. Boaz may have acted upon an opportunity to repay Ruth for her kindnesses towards Naomi, for he had heard Naomi’s story. Knowing the story, and being a man of faith, here was an opportunity to exercise fellowship toward a fellow believer, to exercise agape love toward a new believer, although the Old Testament term is the Hebrew hashaq. A religious man such as Boaz may have felt a strong bond with a person of piety and virtue (3:11). Ruth and Naomi had suffered much, yet had remained true to the Lord throughout their ordeal. The common bond of faith may have impelled Boaz to act kindly toward Ruth. One cannot discount the possibility that Boaz was thinking of the Scripture that required a brother to raise up an heir for the dead.94 Should Boaz and Ruth have children, the first child will be Mahlon’s child, according the Moses’ Law, and inherit Mahlon’s property. The physical attraction, the attraction of fellowship in faith, and the potential to perform an act of faith in response to the Word of God, would be very compelling reasons to for Boaz to initiate a casual relationship with Ruth. One should also consider that Boaz may have seen an opportunity to add Mahlon’s property to his property through marriage to Ruth. This thought is not cynical, but merely recognizes that pragmatism has its place in normal society. One, some, or all of these thoughts may have raced through Boaz’s mind as he approached Ruth. Certainly Boaz did know of his relationship to Naomi and Ruth through Elimelech. Chapter 3:12, 13 reveal he had given this matter some thought, and had he been younger (3:10) he might have approached Ruth and Naomi about the possibility of redeeming the land which Elimelech had lost, and of raising up an inheritance for the dead according to the Levirate law.95

You will listen, my daughter, Boaz takes the initiative (culturally, Ruth could not) and addresses Ruth directly. “The expression is not patronizing but reflects the age difference between these two persons, and it arises out of the genuine sense of responsibility that Boaz feels for Ruth.”96 The word “daughter” establishes a high moral tone for the relationship. He will take her under his care, like a loving father adopting a stranger into his family. The instruction to glean only in his field(s) is unusual, but not out of place. Most gleaners went from field to field, so as to not overstay their welcome in one field, and so as to gain the most from their gleaning by finding places with less competition (from other gleaners) and by working the fields with the least careful reapers and gatherers. 94

The various laws concerning inheritance are a wonderful illustration of the Christian’s security in Christ. Just as the land could never leave the original family (in the last resort it was returned at the Jubilee Year), even so the Believer can never loose his inheritance in Christ. Compare 1 Peter 1:4, 5. 95 See Appendix two. 96 Block, Judges, Ruth, 659.

24

Ruth Two

The instruction to “stay close by my young women” is very unusual but also not out of place. This position would give Ruth first place among the other gleaners. That is, when the women servants had finished bundling the stalks of grain, Ruth could immediately move up and gather any dropped stalks or ears of grain. The order of harvest was reapers, bundlers, gatherers, and then gleaners. The women servants followed the male reapers to gather and bundle the cut stalks. Then the gatherers collected and removed the bundles for storage, probably using an ox (or donkey) drawn cart following immediately after the bundlers. Logic and caution require that gleaning in a particular section of the field be allowed only after the bundles had been removed from that section. Is Boaz, then, assigning Ruth to the women’s group of bundlers? Is he in effect hiring her; or is he bringing her into his household? “First, his instruction seemed to grant Ruth some sort of status in Boaz’s household. In modern terms, by giving access to the water cooler (v. 9) and the lunchroom (v. 14) Boaz resembled a boss showing a new employee around the office . . . Did his command to stay with his workers throughout the entire harvest season (v. 21) imply some sort of hiring?”97 To assume Boaz is hiring Ruth, or that he is bringing her into the family as a household servant, is probably reading too much into the story. Both Boaz and the Narrator continue to treat Ruth as a gleaner, vv. 15-17, and Ruth specifically denies any family or hired servant relationship, v. 13. What is apparent is that Boaz has granted her a status which Hubbard describes as “most favored gleaner.”98 His (Boaz) reasons for so doing are clearly stated in v. 11. A godly man does not hesitate to reward godly works. Does the use of the word daughter reflect Boaz’s knowledge of and interest in the near-kinsman relationship he bears to Ruth through Naomi and Elimelech? The text, 2:20, reflects that Ruth did not yet know of Boaz as a relative, a near kinsman. Although a possibility, Boaz’s remarks at 3:10 (where Ruth proposes marriage and Boaz accepts) seem to indicate that, although he knew of the relationship, he did not believe Ruth would have an interest in him; and as he notes (3:12) there was a kinsman nearer than him. No, Boaz uses the word daughter as a sign of respect, of compassion, and of morality, in that response which faith makes towards faith. He will take this stranger in Israel under his care and protection, a new daughter brought into the family by faith.

Let your eyes be on the field which they reap Ruth is to stay close to the young women who are working for Boaz. By staying close to the women Boaz ensured she would have grain to glean, and coincidentally ensured her safety (from competition and from those unfriendly to gleaners). Ruth had asked to be allowed to “gather after the reapers among the sheaves” by which she meant after the cutting-gathering-bundling process had been completed in any particular section of the field. Boaz has told her to gather close behind the bundlers. This makes an enormous impact on her ability to gather grain. She does not need to wait for all the servants to move away from the area where they are working, but can gather right behind the bundlers. She is now ahead of all other gleaners, and v. 16 indicates Boaz has placed her there specifically for the purpose of deliberately giving her grain under guise of gleaning. Note also the instructions Boaz will give to the men concerning Ruth. They were not to touch her, which in some contexts is used as a euphemism for what we would call sexual harassment. Because Ruth was a foreigner some of the men may have felt the normal cultural restraints did not apply. Boaz ensures her safety by keeping her in his fields under his direct protection. However, it may also 97 98

Hubbard, Ruth, 156. Hubbard, Ruth, 156.

25

Ruth Two

indicate physical violence. Perhaps the reapers found it necessary to restrain gleaners who tried to glean beside the reapers, rather than well behind them. Ruth’s permission to glean “close beside my young women” would have her overstepping that invisible (but well-known) boundary between reaper and gleaner, and thus she would need this word of protection and safety. In his work The Land and the Book, William Thomson writes of his experiences of nearly 50 years in Palestine during the 1800's. He notes many of the then contemporary practices parallel those mentioned in the Bible. Of this scene in Ruth Thomson writes, “Boaz commanded they behave respectfully to Ruth . . . Such precautions are not out of place at this day. The reapers are gathered from all parts of the country, and largely from the ruder class, and, being far from home, throw off all restraint, and give free license to their tongues.”99 Some of the reapers, not in just Boaz’s field, but throughout the entire village fields, would have come from outlying areas to reap for hire in the fields of Bethlehem. A similar practice was and is used in the wheat fields of America, where traveling groups of men hire themselves and their harvesting equipment to local farmers. Ruth, a stranger, a foreigner, and a woman alone, a widow, in a male dominated society, may have had need to be apprehensive; but Boaz calmed her fears with a promise of his protection.

And when you are thirsty The village well, as nearly as can be determined, lay a little less than one-half mile outside the city gates.100 Normally the women would have drawn water for the men. In the context of the harvest it appears the normal cultural rolls were reversed so as much water as possible could be brought to the fields. The young men would have drawn as much water as they could carry for the use of the Boaz crew. No gleaner would have expected to have drunk from that water. They would either have brought their own, or more likely, have left the fields from time to time to slake their thirst. This would reduce their opportunities for gleaning. With this instruction Boaz greatly increased her efficiency and productivity. Boaz’s instructions were extraordinary in this cultural context. Normally Ruth, as a foreigner and as a woman, would have drawn water for the men; but here she was drinking from water drawn by the men for the exclusive use of the Boaz reaping crew. One can only speculate if Boaz had feelings for Ruth, at this time, beyond those expressed in verse 11. Of all the actions and words of Boaz this is perhaps the most telling, that he would give a cup of cold water to the least in God’s kingdom, the foreigner Ruth.101

10 So she fell on her face, bowed down to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?” 11 And Boaz answered and said to her, “It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before. 12 “The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.” 13 Then she said, “Let me find favor in your sight, my lord; for you have comforted me, and have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants.” Thomson, The Land and the Book, II: 40. Morrison, Ruth, 32. 101 Hubbard’s comment is worth noting: “But his actions clearly complemented those of Ruth and exemplified another aspect of devotion: devotion is generous with what it has to give.” 99

100

26

Ruth Two

So she fell on her face, bowed down to the ground The Hebrew word translated “bowed down,” is hishtahawa. This word is translated (in the KJV) as bow, bowed, worship, worshiped, obeisance, reverence, and did reverence.102 The main thought of the word is to prostrate oneself, i.e., falling to one’s knees and then bowing with the face to the ground. The context reveals whether this is performed in worship to deity, or as a mark of respect, or gratitude. The person who was the socially superior never bowed to the socially inferior. “The symbolism was graphic: her vulnerable prostration physically expressed both the social distance between them and her gratitude for Boaz’s kindness.”103 Ruth’s action was a socially conditioned involuntary response to an overwhelming circumstance. She was overwhelmed with gratitude and wonder. Boaz had, in effect, raised her up from her poor and hopeless condition and brought her into a relationship which could be of benefit only to her and Naomi; for what benefit could Boaz reap from such kindnesses? Ruth was obviously unprepared for these events, but was Boaz? Boaz (v. 11) is very much aware of what is happening in his town and to his relatives. He may have anticipated finding Ruth in his field at some point during the harvest, and if so may have planned to do her good in recompense for the good she had done to Naomi. He didn’t rush things; he didn’t even tell his head servant or his reapers: he heeded the command to “be still and know that I am the Lord,” and let YHWH work out the natural course of events as he might will to do. When his opportunity came, Boaz was prepared. Whether prepared beforehand or not, Boaz was the type of believer whose lifestyle prepares him or her to be ready whenever the Lord calls. Ruth, however, was completely unprepared for Boaz’s actions. Naomi had not burdened Ruth with the information that their condition could be improved by an act of redemption taken by a near kinsman. Perhaps Naomi believed no near kinsman would take up the obligation. Or, perhaps she wanted Ruth to be able to act innocently and naturally should such an opportunity arise. Naomi had lost her husband and sons when Elimelech tried to manage their circumstances. It was time to pray and wait upon YHWH to work out her circumstances, to accept whatever seemed good to the Lord. Thus, Ruth is able to react with an unfeigned innocence consistent with her circumstances.

Why have I found favor in your eyes Why, she asks, would a man such as Boaz notice her, a foreigner and a widow; a poor woman reduced to gleaning off the labor of others to survive her desperate circumstances? “Boaz had dignified this destitute widow from a foreign land and treated her as a significant person, on a par socially with his hired and presumably Israelite field workers. Ruth, who is obviously extremely selfconscious about her alien status, cannot believe Boaz’s indifference to the fact she is a Moabite.”104 Boaz has treated her as though he both recognized her and welcomed her as a member of the family. Her words form a pun which “might be rendered ‘You have noticed the unnoticed’, or ‘recognized the unrecognized.’ At the same time, it [Ruth’s statement] implied awareness of some sort of acceptance into Boaz’s clan, perhaps even into his family. She was not family but Boaz had treated her as if she were . . . Boaz had unexpectedly welcomed this stranger to Israel through 102 103 104

Wigram, Concordance, 1250. Hubbard, Ruth, 161. Block, Judges, Ruth, 661.

27

Ruth Two

association with his workers.”105 Notice also the relationship between Ruth’s question here and her resolve in v. 2 to glean after him in whose sight I may find favor. “She repeated the idiom, masa hen be enayim, of her opening declaration. To the audience who, unlike Boaz, had heard those earlier words, the implication was obvious: ‘I have found the person I was looking for–and he exceeds my expectations!’”106 In more modern terms, Ruth is asking, “Why me Lord?” Christians look expectantly for God’s favor, but are often surprised when favor is granted. The special providence and grace God extended toward Ruth, Naomi, and even toward Boaz, should make the reader take appropriate notice of the same works of the Lord in his or her life. Bow reverently and worship, for your Lord is at work in your life.

And Boaz answered and said to her, “It has been fully reported to me,” Boaz is well aware of Naomi and Ruth, their past, and Ruth’s actions toward Naomi. The important note sounded here is Ruth’s actions after the death of her husband. She could have left (with Orpah), but she remained with Naomi, even to the point of abandoning, in a once-for-all act, her family and her land. The phrase “left your father and your mother” is similar to Genesis 2:24 and, though its use in the narrative may hint at a future marriage relationship between Ruth and Boaz, its indicates Boaz understood the depth of Ruth’s commitment to both Naomi and YHWH. Her departure from not only father and mother but also from her land and people are significant in Boaz’s eyes. In a time when most people were never separated from either, Ruth had left both to adopt, and hopefully be adopted, by a people whose religion, and in many respects whose culture, was foreign to her. Boaz focuses on those significant actions which affected Ruth personally. On the death of her husband Ruth could have returned to her Moabite family. But, she made that sacrifice to remain with Naomi. When Naomi returned to Israel she could have returned to her Moabite family, but she remained with Naomi. She could have returned to her Moabite gods, but she made that step of faith to remain with Naomi and accept YHWH as her God. Faith requires a departure from those things that are not of faith. Boaz recognizes that abandoning the past means embracing the present and future. His personal faith is drawn to Ruth’s expressions of faith; the Holy Spirit is moving him to have fellowship with a new believer, and to do those “good works” that faith requires. One shouldn’t imagine that Boaz personally investigated the facts about Naomi and Ruth. Rather, like others in the village, Boaz had heard the story. Knowing that Noami was a relative, he probably took more interest in the story than did others. This raises, again, the question of inaction on the part of Noami, and now Boaz, who knew of the family relationship, yet did nothing to relieve their poverty through that relationship. I have previously explained why Naomi did not approach any of her near relatives. I believe Boaz’s inaction is based upon the same Scripture and reasons. Though Boaz was a relative, he was not a brother of Elimelech, and thus was not under the obligation of Deuteronomy 25 to marry the widow (Noami) and raise a child as a heir for the dead (obviously he was not a brother to Ruth’s dead husband Mahlon). As to Leviticus 25, redemption of a relative’s sold land was not an obligation, but was strictly voluntary. If no redemptive action was taken the land reverted to the original owner in the year of the jubilee. Thus, Boaz had no obligation under the Law of Moses to marry Naomi, or Ruth, and had no obligation to redeem the land Noami had sold (4:3). 105 106

Hubbard, Ruth, 163. Hubbard, Ruth, 161.

28

Ruth Two

Yet Boaz does appear to have had some interest in the situation. He approaches Ruth and acts toward her in a manner which implies he had given the matter some thought.107 His character rises to the forefront through his actions. Boaz undoubtedly knew the Scripture encouraging, even commanding, kindness toward a stranger and the poor. For example: • Deuteronomy 10:17-19, “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” • Leviticus 19:10, “And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” • Leviticus 19:33-34, “'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 'The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” • Deuteronomy 15:11, “For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’ ” Later in Israel’s history these laws and actions were condensed into proverbs, such as Proverbs 19:17, “He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, and the LORD will pay back what he has given,” and Proverbs 28:27, “He who gives to the poor will not lack, but he who hides his eyes will have many curses.” Boaz’s righteousness and kindness are showing through his actions. He hears the law and does it. Boaz’s actions also indicate the principle of righteous reward. Ruth had acted righteously in her conduct toward Naomi. Boaz felt obligated to reciprocate Ruth’s kindness toward Naomi by acting kindly toward Ruth. From the divine point of view, “Ruth begins now to reap the abundant harvest which is growing for her in the Divine purposes of mercy–a harvest of which Boaz’s fields are only a part, and of which indeed all that Boaz possessed was but a feeble illustration. She had been faithful in that which appeared to be the least, and now she was to be rewarded with that which seemed to be much.”108 The reader, having been made aware of all these things by the Narrator, sees in these actions the faint beginnings of a relationship between Ruth and Boaz. However, Boaz does not raise the issue of kinship, and Ruth is unaware of that relationship. Rather Boaz is a true Israelite acting in a godly manner toward one who, under the Law, and by reason of her actions and faith, deserves his kindness and generosity.

And Boaz answered and said to her, “The LORD repay your work” Interestingly, Boaz does not explain his actions in terms of personal interest, i.e., a romantic interest in Ruth. His response is chaste and religious, “I am acting in this manner, not out of personal motives, or an untoward interest in you, but because of your good works and faith.” Boaz sees himself as an instrument of YHWH to righteously repay Ruth for her good works and her faith. The wise believer recognizes that, although the Lord could work without him, the Lord chooses to work through his people to accomplish his will. Believers are in Christ in a partnership with the Lord 107

Compare 3:9-11. Boaz did not hesitate when Ruth proposed marriage. Although by the time of 3:9-11 several months had passed (April - June), yet his immediate response indicates he had considered the matter. 108 Excell, Ruth, 51.

29

Ruth Two

to do those “good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). Christ is the managing partner and believers work according to his direction and by his empowerment using the resources he has provided. Having found a good work to do, Boaz does it “with all his might.” But he carefully disclaims himself, preferring to give God all the glory. From Boaz’s point of view God has brought Ruth to faith, and therefore God will reward her for her faith and good works. Boaz is merely the instrument through whom blessing shall come. Boaz says, “a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel.” The name “LORD God,” YHWH Elohim, is a covenant name of YHWH, indicating his relationship to his covenant people as Sustainer and Provider, as well as King and Lord. The combined name declares God’s love and righteousness. Thus, it is just to reward Ruth, and it is loving to reward Ruth. Holiness and grace are in view as YHWH acts through Boaz to reward Ruth’s faith, and to sustain her mundane life.109 Although neither can know at this time, the “full reward” Boaz invokes from YHWH includes their future together as husband and wife. When a believer walks in obedience to the Lord he or she is in the place of “full reward,” the place where Christ can pour out his blessings. When one does that which he or she is supposed to do, to “do right” in the eyes of the Lord, then he is being holy as God is holy; to do right is to abide in him and walk with him: the path of righteousness is walking in the path of obedience with a willing heart. Ruth and Boaz were on that path, separately, but now their paths are merging. Both are in the place where the LORD God can bless. There is a economic sense in the Hebrew word translated “repay.” “Significantly, the key verb (slm, in the piel tense) means ‘to make whole, to complete.’ It refers either to the final completion of an action begun earlier, or to the restoration of a wholeness disturbed earlier. An economic term for transactions involving compensation or repayment, slm means basically ‘to restore, to replace with an equivalent.’ That its parallel line has economic terms confirms that slm has its economic sense here.”110 Boaz’s language implies YHWH has a debt to Ruth for her righteous actions, and this is not a foreign concept to Scripture. Although repayment of debt is usually used in a negative sense, to repay a man according to his unrighteousness deeds (Psalm 28:4), it is also used in a positive sense (1 Samuel 26:23). The Lord is debtor to no one, in part because he pays his debts to everyone. Ruth by faith had left everything, and the righteous God will through her faith restore her to better things than that which she had left. In my mind that includes the religious (she left her gods and YHWH has become her God), the economic (through Boaz she is supplied with food), and the social (she lost her husband, she will marry another). The words translated “a full reward” have the sense of wages. As such it is parallel to “repay.” The word occurs in one other place, Genesis 29 & 31, in the dispute between Jacob and Laban concerning Jacob’s “wages” for Rachel and his flocks. In effect, “Boaz prayed that the wages earned by Ruth in service to Naomi–the debt Yahweh owed her–be paid to her in full.”111 Only YHWH could repay the debt, but Boaz understood that repayment would come through himself, at least that part of repayment concerning Ruth and Naomi’s physical welfare, for God works through his people. The nearness of the phrase “the LORD God of Israel” to the term “reward” is significant. “Ruth is a Moabite. Because of her deeds of kindness to Naomi, an Israelite, she, an outsider, had obligated the God of Israel to repayment. As the last line of v. 12 indicates, however, by transferring her spiritual allegiance from the gods of Moab to Yahweh the God of Israel, Ruth was also claiming 109 110 111

Mundane, meaning life in the world, versus the spiritual life of the believer. Excell, Ruth, 165, 166. Excel, Ruth, 166.

30

Ruth Two

Yahweh as her divine patron and protector.”112 One cannot separate faith from action. Ruth’s faith is the connection between herself and YHWH, but her actions are the connection between her faith and blessing. YHWH has obligated himself to reward faithful, righteous acts. Boaz knows that obligation and calls upon YHWH to commit to his promises, as, indeed, he will and must, not because of debt, as we might define it, but because God is true to his character and faithful to his promises. In a term more familiar to modern believers, Boaz is “claiming the promises” of God on behalf of Ruth.

“under whose wings you have come for refuge.” The Lord, of course, does not have wings, being “spirit” (John 4:24). God uses various figures and metaphors to help believers understand his heart. Boaz means that Ruth has accepted the Lord as her protector and provider. “By wings here we are to understand the grace, the power, the mercy, the love, and the protection of the Almighty; for this is what we continually need in the midst of trials, inward sins, and outward adversities.”113 Boaz “recognizes the aspect of Ruth’s change of country by saying that she has come to trust under Yahweh’s wings. The imagery is probably that of a tiny bird snuggling under the wings of a foster-mother. It gives a vivid picture of trust and security .”114 This verse provides a key to the book of Ruth. The key thought, “under whose wings you have come for refuge,” is a recognition that the Lord is rewarding the sacrifice of her faith. Ruth’s sacrifice was to leave everything she had known in her former life and follow the Lord; her sacrifice was to go out and labor in the fields on behalf of Naomi and herself; her sacrifice was to live poorly in exchange for a faith that transcended earthly comforts. Boaz was the means through whom the Lord would provide blessing, security, etc. Was Boaz aware that he was a part of that “refuge” provided by the Lord? He acted in a manner that suggests he had this understanding, allowing the Lord to work through him on Ruth’s behalf. Whether or not he consciously understood his part in being that “reward” and those “wages,” and in being the sheltering “wings,” he played his part in being those things for Ruth. That kind of spiritual insight comes with a consistent life and long-term relationship with the Lord. To understand that the Lord acts for his people through his people is to understand the ways of the Lord and to understand the book of Ruth.

Let me find favor in your sight, my lord; for you have comforted me, and have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants.” Ruth recognizes she has been handed the favor she desired through the kindnesses of Boaz (does she understand Boaz himself to be the answer to her prayers?). Oh, the power of our prayers, even when unwittingly uttered, and the power of God’s grace to “reward” faith and faithful works. Ruth is getting a practical lesson in faith, and every reader should learn with her. Galatians 6:9 exhorts Christians to “not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.” (Boaz exemplifies Galatians 6:10!) The just and holy Lord rewards the patient continuance of faith and zealousness for good works. The phrase “let me find favor in your sight, my Lord,” is a fairly literal reading of the Hebrew. 112 113 114

Block, Judges, Ruth, 663. Dennet, Ruth, 87. Morris, Ruth, 277.

31

Ruth Two

The thought of gratitude is expressed in the original text, but also the desire of future acts of favor from Boaz. The text could be translated “May I continue to please you, sir.”115 She is saying how glad she is that he is kind, and asking that she may continue to be the recipient of his kindness. Though astounded at the generosity of Boaz, Ruth is careful to maintain a proper social distance. She called him “sir,” adoni, “the impersonal, courteous expression of respect,”116 and she names herself sipha, “maidservant.” In the book of Ruth two Hebrew words are translated maidservant. Sipha and amah117 are sometimes used synonymously (e.g., Genesis 20:14, 17), but in Ruth they are distinct. “Sipha seems to designate a virgin slave woman who belonged to the lowest social class, the one responsible for the most menial duties. Oriented toward her work, the term implied that she was her owner’s property . . . By calling herself a sipha, Ruth thus underscored her gratitude: Boaz had graciously condescended to encourage a lowly, menial laborer. She also betrayed awareness of her inferior social status.”118 Though showered with blessings and favor, Ruth remains humble. Those who take the lowest seat are sometimes invited to come up higher (Luke 14:10). Note that in her humility Ruth says she is being treated like a maidservant, but that she is not actually worthy to be a maidservant. Boaz may be treating her as though she were part of the family, but Ruth does not impose on his generosity.

14 Now Boaz said to her at mealtime, “Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your piece of bread in the vinegar.” So she sat beside the reapers, and he passed parched grain to her; and she ate and was satisfied, and kept some back. 15 And when she rose up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying, “Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not reproach her. 16 “Also let grain from the bundles fall purposely for her; leave it that she may glean, and do not rebuke her.” Again we see Boaz’s kindness and his godliness on display and in action. Note that Ruth “sat beside the reapers.” To invite a gleaner to sit and take lunch with the employees and household servants was socially irregular. Is Boaz responding to Ruth’s use of sipah? By inviting her to take lunch with him he invited her, if only temporarily, to the household. Did she take lunch with the reapers every day, or just this day? Undoubtably some sort of social order was being violated. Where did she sit, a poor girl among the hired hands and household staff? The text implies Boaz also sat at the table, close enough for him to pass grain to her. Put yourself in the reapers’ sandals: you and your fellow employees are having lunch in the employee lounge when your boss brings in a homeless person, sits her at your table, and provides her lunch–more than she can eat. How would you feel? Lunch was an important meal. The near eastern culture did not eat a modern breakfast. Some fruit (a few grapes, dates, or olives), or a small piece of bread, might be eaten upon awakening. “According to an old custom, the laborers worked all morning with little or no food, and then had their first meal of the day about noon, although the time varied according to the occupation and circumstances of the eater. This meal normally consisted of pieces of bread, roasted grain, olives, So Hubbard, Ruth, 168. Hubbard, Ruth, 169. 117 “By contrast, amah designated a slave woman eligible to marry (or be a concubine to) Israelite freemen and hence enjoy status as family.” Hubbard, Ruth, 170. See Ruth’s use of amah, twice, in 3:9. 118 Hubbard, Ruth, 170. 115 116

32

Ruth Two

figs, or other fruit in season, and was generally light in character so as not to interfere with the afternoon’s work.”119 The fields would have been close to the village, but not convenient to walk home for a small lunch. Boaz invites Ruth to have lunch with his reapers, and he even joins the table, giving her some roasted grain (parched wheat), which is unripe wheat roasted on a hot iron (really quite tasty), and used in place of, or with, bread. The roasted grain was made from the best ears of corn, not too ripe, plucked with the stalks attached. These were tied in small parcels, and held in a blazing fire (kindled with dry grass and thorn bushes), until the chaff was mostly burned off. When the grain was sufficiently roasted, it was rubbed out in the hand and eaten.120 The vinegar was “either a refreshing sour drink or a vinegar-based sauce into which bread was customarily dipped.”121 Ruth does not eat all the grain and bread. Perhaps Boaz had given her a large amount, but would have kept some back even if she had not been given more than enough to satisfy her appetite. The grain she kept back is for Naomi, v. 18, a source of sustenance which Naomi can put to immediate use. The reader must notice Ruth’s sense of responsibility and duty. Certainly she did not have to keep back any of the grain. That she did so reveals she was a woman who took her duties and responsibilities seriously. The Law and the culture placed upon her an obligation to provide for Naomi as well as for herself. With no one watching (knowledge of her actions probably came later, as the story was told to her children and grandchildren), she takes care to provide for Naomi by not eating some of the grain Boaz had given her. God did not test her faith in this area: her belly was full. God could have made this a moral choice by giving her too little grain to satisfy herself and also provide for Naomi. God did not test her faith because she had no need to be tried and proven true. Her faith, her sense of duty and responsibility, her determination to do what was right: all these things were settled matters in her heart. Ruth doesn’t linger at the table. No after dinner conversation for her. The fate of Naomi and herself rests in just how much grain she is able to glean. Remember, she is competing with other gleaners for a limited amount of grain. All well and good to sit at the owner’s table, but she must return to her necessities, and quickly. Boaz–perhaps he saw her keep back part of the grain and was again impressed by this young woman–turns to his men after she leaves and gives instructions concerning her. Ruth was given special favors (which she could not fail to notice as other gleaners would be forbidden what she was allowed). She need not wait for the gatherers, but could glean “among the sheaves,” that is, she could glean in between the grain piles or bundles before the gatherers carried them off to the storage area.122 This is consistent with his instructions at v. 8. Surely this allowed her to catch an extra stalk fallen to the ground, or extra ear of grain ripened and fallen from the main stalk. This privilege was forbidden to gleaners for fear they might steal from the bundled grain stalks, or because uncharitable farmers wanted their reapers to pick up any fallen stalks of grain. More than this, Boaz’s servants were to allow some grain to fall out of the collected bundles, “purposely for her.” This could mean they were to allow a stalk to fall out of their hand as they reaped (they cut the stalks with the right hand and held them with the left hand), or they were to cut a stalk and leave it lying on the ground for her. (The cut stalks were normally carried under a reaper’s arm until set down for bundling.) Certainly it meant the bundlers were to allow Bromiley, Encyclopedia, III: 291. Thomson, The Land and the Book, II: 40, 41. 121 Hubbard, Ruth, 173. 122 Boaz may also be understood as saying she could glean between reaping and bundling, but this would make it impossible for Ruth-the-gleaner to decide which stalks were harvest and which were eligible for gleaning. 119 120

33

Ruth Two

some grain to fall to the ground for Ruth. Ruth was being shown unusual favor. I wonder what the young men and women thought upon receiving these instructions? Boaz has given instructions that his employees were not to rebuke Ruth for gleaning too closely to the harvesters. “They are not to humiliate (v. 15) or insult (v. 16) her. The first word, haklim, derives from a root, kala, ‘to be humiliated, shamed, disgraced. The second, gaar, means ‘to insult, to rebuke.’ Together these words reiterate and extend the protection Boaz had afforded in v. 9.”123 One wonders how Ruth dealt with these special privileges, especially when other gleaners were rebuked and forced to leave an area where Ruth alone was allowed to glean.

17 So she gleaned in the field until evening, and beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley. The narrator says Ruth gleaned until the evening. However, gleaning grain was not enough. She must remove the kernels from the stalks. Where she beat out the grain (probably not at Boaz’s threshing floor) and at what time she finished is not noted. Separating the kernels from the stalk was a laborious process. Ruth would beat the stalks with a stick or flail; she might walk on the stalks; she may have just broken the heads of grain from the stalk; or she may have beat or stomped the whole into smaller pieces. Then she winnowed the grain, possibly using head shawl as a winnowing basket and letting the wind and gravity to blow away the chaff and consolidate the grain. Winnowing was a long and repetitious process, and given the time constraints (she would be hard pressed to finish before the sun went down) she may have just separated the heads from the stalks and went home to pick the kernels out from the head. Keil and Delitzsch remark that an ephah of barley is about 20 to 25 pounds of grain, which would be at least four gallons of grain.124 Other commentators125 give the measurement as about a bushel of grain, or about four to eight gallons of grain. Hubbard estimates about 29 pounds. An omer was one-tenth an ephah (an omer of mannah was put into the ark of the covenant). An ephah was the dry-measure equivalent of the bath, which was about 22 liters (5.8 US gallons), or one-half to three-fifths of a bushel, thus 29 US pounds.126 If she had an ephah of barley kernels, then imagine the weight of the stalks she had gleaned! If you don’t realize it, a considerable amount of work goes into getting 20-30 pounds of grain from leftovers found in the field. Obviously Boaz’s men respected him and followed his instructions, dropping handfuls on purpose for Ruth. The result was an amazing harvest for Ruth (cf. 1 Samuel 17:17). Block says, based upon records from Old Babylonian, the amount of threshed grain demanded of a male harvester was rarely more than 1-2 pounds daily.127 Hubbard states same figure, noting that Ruth collected the equivalent of at least half a month’s wages in one day.128 Some would calculate the weight of the grain as 50 pounds, based upon competing measurements Block, Judges, Ruth, 669. Block, Judges, Ruth, 480. 125 Matthew Poole says a bushel, as do Jamieson, Faussett and Brown. Webster’s Dictionary defines a bushel as 32 quarts (8 gallons). Unger defines it as about 7 ½ gallons. Leon Morris says an ephah is about 4 gallons of grain. These are of course dry measures expressed in liquid equivalents. According to the Smith and Peloubet Bible Dictionary (revised 1948) Josephus defined an ephah as just over 8 gallons, the Rabbinists as just over 4 gallons, hence the differences between modern commentators.. 126 Hubbard, Ruth, 179. 127 Block, Judges, Ruth, 670, note 91. 128 Hubbard, Ruth, 179. 123 124

34

Ruth Two

for an ephah. However, “The amount Ruth carried home was rather impressive for a gleaner, but we are not called upon to add to her list of virtues that she was as strong as an ox.”129 Whether 4 gallons or 8, Ruth had gleaned quite a lot of grain in one day, much to Naomi’s surprise! In my house I have measured three gallons of wheat, a heavier grain, at just under 25 pounds, making a gallon of wheat to weigh about 8 pounds. Four gallons130 would seem to be the more correct measurement. Any more would have been difficult for Ruth to carry (8 pounds times 4 gallons = 32 pounds, whereas 8 gallons would weigh 64 pounds)

18 Then she took it up and went into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. So she brought out and gave to her what she had kept back after she had been satisfied. 19 And her mother-in-law said to her, “Where have you gleaned today? And where did you work? Blessed be the one who took notice of you.” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked, and said, “The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz.” 20 Then Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not forsaken His kindness to the living and the dead!” And Naomi said to her, “This man is a relation of ours, one of our close relatives.” 21 Ruth the Moabitess said, “He also said to me, ‘You shall stay close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest.’” 22 And Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, “It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his young women, and that people do not meet you in any other field.” 23 So she stayed close by the young women of Boaz, to glean until the end of barley harvest and wheat harvest; and she dwelt with her mother-in-law. Then she took it up and went into the city Using her head shawl, probably slung over her shoulder to carry the grain, Ruth returns to the city and Naomi. Naomi is undoubtably surprised at the amount of grain Ruth brings home. The parched grain, leftover from Ruth’s lunch, is probably equally amazing, for where during a day of gleaning would Ruth get parched grain? Food for now and enough barley kernels for the future demanded an explanation. Naomi quickly surmises that Ruth did indeed find favor with someone, and prays for blessing on that someone (v. 19) for so obviously blessing Ruth. Verse 20 indicates Naomi has not forgotten the Lord as the ultimate source of all blessings.

Where have you gleaned today? And where did you work? With the appearance of the parched wheat, Naomi finds her voice. The two similar questions are the repetition of a surprised outburst. In asking “Where?” Naomi means “In whose field?” She wants to know who is the author of this blessing because, obviously, Ruth could not have worked hard enough to have gotten that much grain by herself. Without waiting for an answer she requests blessing for that man, praying that YHWH would give that man the blessing which produces Hubbard, Ruth, 179, note 5, quoting E. F. Campbell, Anchor Bible Commentary. The average person’s daily nutritional needs are met in one quart of wheat or three quarts of barley. Four gallons of barley is sufficient food for two people for two and one-half days. The grain was prepared as bread or porridge. Ruth was responsible to feed two people, making God’s providence through Boaz all the more needful. As the extra grain beyond their daily needs accumulated, perhaps they were able to sell or trade it for vegetables, possibly meat. 129 130

35

Ruth Two

prosperity. This thought invokes the same thought as that of Boaz, v. 12, that it is righteous for God to bless someone who has become a channel of blessing. There is a completeness to the action: Ruth was blessed by Boaz because she remained with Naomi and turned to the Lord; Boaz is blessed by Naomi (in prayer) because he has blessed Ruth. YHWH is the source of these prayers and acts.

So she told her mother-in-law Ruth’s answer is completely innocent: she has no idea Boaz is a kinsman. Naomi, however, does know her relationship with Boaz. I can see Naomi’s mind working, figuring out the possibilities for herself and Ruth. What Ruth says, in verse 21, must have confirmed all her suspicions. This Boaz was taken with Ruth, and the possibility that he would perform the duty of a near kinsman and rescue them from their poverty, and for Ruth from her unmarried and childless state–the possibilities were very great indeed! The reader also knows Boaz’s relationship with Naomi. See how the Narrator withholds Boaz’s name until the final word, thus building suspense. This is one of the things his readers have been waiting for, that Naomi would come to know that Boaz, her kinsmanredeemer, was the one to whom Ruth had been providentially guided. What will happen next? How will Naomi use this to their mutual advantage?

“Blessed be he of the LORD Naomi praises Boaz and declares him worthy of further blessing by YHWH: “The formula baruk hu layhwh actually expressed both a declaration of praise (‘he is to be thanked’) and a blessing (‘may he be blessed’).”131 The phrase “who has not forsaken his kindness to the living and the dead” has some difficulties. Is Naomi speaking of YHWH or Boaz? How are the dead being affected by Boaz or Yahweh? I favor YHWH as the one who has not forsaken the living and the dead. The closeness of YHWH to the immediate action makes it more likely that he is the subject of the sentence. Secondly, the identification of “this man” as the subject of the next two sentences would be unnecessary if Boaz was the subject of “has not forsaken his kindness.” The word “he” versus “this man” would be expected. Naomi has YHWH in mind as the One who has regard for the living and the dead, and Boaz as the one through whom such blessing shall be obtained.How has the Lord “not forsaken the living and the dead” through the actions of Boaz, and the fact that he is a near kinsman who has taken an interest in Ruth? One may be assured that actions which affect the living do not affect the dead. The Bible is very clear that death is a great gulf which separates the living and the dead, and no action by, toward, or on behalf of the living has any affect upon those who are dead. While the pagans believed their actions affected the dead, this is not the teaching of Scripture. This phrase should be seen as one which represents the family unit. Naomi is thinking of herself and Ruth in terms of the larger family unit of which they are but a part. Though Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion are dead, yet in terms of culture and society the once living relationships affect those still living. There is the issue of an heir to continue the family, and the issue of land to be redeemed. YHWH has not forsaken the unity and continuance of the family unit, because he is providing a kinsman-redeemer (Boaz) who can, if he will, provide for an heir and redeem the land. Though their husbands are dead, the living remain conscious of their obligations to the family unit, as created through birth and marriage. “Ruth, though a Moabitess, was the 131

Hubbard, Ruth, 185.

36

Ruth Two

representative of the dead, but she could not claim the inheritance in her own right, nor secure a seed to hold it on behalf of her dead husband. If taken up at all the inheritance had to be taken up according to the ancient statute of the right of redemption.”132 It is this that draws Naomi’s attention to Boaz, and sparks her comment concerning Jehovah’s care for the “living and the dead.” This is no different from what society does today. If parents die with small children relatives take up the responsibility of raising them to maturity. Property owned by the deceased is managed for the good of the living relatives. All countries have laws to manage these issues. Naomi’s meaning is no different.

This man is a relation of ours, one of our close relatives. The Jewish Targum says Elimelech may have been the brother of Salmon, who was the father of Boaz. Perhaps the nearer kinsman bore this same relationship, but was born before Boaz. I discussed the issues of redeeming property and levirate marriage. Here, I will us discuss the concept of the kinsman-redeemer as it relates to sinners and Christ. Many commentators view the book of Ruth in the context of Christ as the sinner’s kinsman-redeemer. The New Testament does not address the redemption of sinners in terms of Christ as the kinsman-redeemer. I prefer to follow the admonition (Scofield, Fairbairn) that nothing is a type133 which is not used as a type in the New Testament. The New Testament never identifies Christ as a type of the kinsman-redeemer as found in Deuteronomy and Ruth. On the other hand, there are striking similarities between the kinsman-redeemer of the Old Testament, the go el, and Christ. God the Son incarnate as Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, is a near relative, being genuinely human, who assumes responsibility for the well-being sinners. Christ the go el purchases the sinner out of his bondage to sin, restoring freedom and well-being. The sinner is enslaved by sin to death; Christ, the near-kinsman, redeems the sinner by suffering death on his behalf, thus releasing the sinner from his enslavement and doom. Apart from redemption in Christ there is no salvation. Naomi and Ruth were looking toward the restoration of their land and their family through a near kinsman. The issue for the sinner is much more critical. The wages of sin is death, not merely physical death, but a continuing spiritual death which results in an eternal separation from God and an eternal judgment for sin. The sinner is a slave to sin, subject to the wages thereof, and cannot redeem himself from sin, having not only sold himself into slavery, but willingly made himself a bond servant of sin. Only Christ can break the bonds of sin and redeem the sinner, bringing him into an eternal relationship and eternal happiness with God. The actions of the kinsman-redeemer in Ruth may be viewed as illustrating, an aspect the work of Christ in saving sinners, that is, Hebrews 2:14, “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared in the same.”

Ruth the Moabitess said, “He also said to me, ‘You shall stay close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest.’” “Ruth the Moabitess” may simply be the name by which she has become known in Bethlehem, Coates, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 208. A type is a divinely purposed illustration of spiritual truth. For example, John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John makes a connection between Jesus and the lambs slain for sinners under the Old Testament economy. He says, in effect, the lamb slain for sin was an illustration, a type, of the greater lamb, Christ.

132 133

37

Ruth Two

to distinguish her from others in the village whose name is Ruth. Boaz’s workers would have identified her that way, and perhaps that is why the Narrator uses the name here. Regardless, Ruth reports yet more of Boaz’s interest in her, stating she was told, as the NKJV has it, to “stay close by my young men.”There appears to be a conflict. Boaz had told her, verse 8, to “stay close by my young women.” The NKJV translates “young men,” but the Hebrew is nearim, “young people” (Hubbard) but more likely in this context it should be “servants, workers” (Block). Ruth adds the words “all my harvest.” The narrator did not report this command from Boaz, but it was probably implied, since gleaning was Ruth’s primary means of support, and Boaz has taken positive steps to ensure her success. These minor issues aside, it is apparent that Boaz took an immediate interest in the welfare of Ruth and Naomi, and arranged matters to ensure their well-being was advanced by his actions. Ruth’s report, following on the heels of Naomi’s declaration of Boaz as a kinsmanredeemer, indicates she has some level of understanding regarding Boaz’s position as a kinsmanredeemer. Her report of Boaz’s command to glean only in his fields is significant in that context. Undoubtably Naomi’s interest in Boaz is piqued, for here is an opportunity for her future.

And Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law “Maidens are the fittest company for maidens . . . modesty is the life-guard of chastity,”134 words of wisdom which wise Naomi applies to Ruth. Naomi counsels Ruth to glean only in Boaz’s field and stay close by his young women. It would not do to turn from this man and his generosity, and the future his kinship implied. To ensure this budding relationship remains perfectly chaste and respectable Naomi tells Ruth to go out with “his young women.” Two things are accomplished by this instruction. One, there is not and will never be a suspicion of improper action between Ruth and Boaz. Two, Boaz can see that Ruth is not interested in any of the younger men, thus encouraging him to take an greater interest in Ruth. Naomi’s counsel to Ruth is a message to Boaz: Ruth is interested in him, not another; she is not playing the fields, so to speak. Naomi warns Ruth that “people do not meet you in any other field.” The word here translated as “meet” has the idea of abuse or physical harm (so Hubbard, and Block). Things are going well for Ruth, but there is the potential for disaster should she step away from the appointed path. Only faith could avoid disaster. Ruth was to be faithful to Boaz, as she was being faithful to Naomi. One must act on the faith he or she possesses if he is to achieve the results faith has promised. The faith was to look toward Boaz for salvation from their poverty; the faith was to trust YHWH that gleaning in Boaz’s fields would produce all they needed, both immediate food and future security. Faith meant trusting YHWH that Boaz would act the part of the kinsman-redeemer in response to their faith toward and prayers to the Lord. Faith acting receives the reward of faith; and all Naomi and Ruth had was faith.

So she stayed close by the young women of Boaz Ruth is a grown woman, anywhere between 25 and 30 years old (assuming marriage between 15-20 years of age, and we know the marriage lasted about 10 years). She could have ignored any or all of Naomi’s advice, and in any culture she might have ignored the older woman as meddlesome and interfering. Her piety and basic decency comes to the fore again, for our learning. Ruth humbles herself under the older woman’s leadership. This is biblical. I have noted before that 134

Excell, Ruth, 64.

38

Ruth Two

the Apostle Paul did not develop his theology apart from the influence of the Old Testament. Read Titus 2:3-5.

to glean until the end of barley harvest and wheat harvest As this chapter concludes, the Narrator gives us two important details. One is the mention of the wheat harvest. Time is passing for Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz. Chapter two began in mid-April, and it will be about the first of June when the events of chapter three take place. What happens during these two months is the daily consistency of life. Why is that important” Remember what is happening. Ruth is gleaning only in the field of Boaz. Boaz is seeing that this woman is young and strong, and faithful. She is faithful to Naomi and to himself. She is a hard worker, not shirking to labor in the fields day after day. She willingly meets her responsibilities, providing for herself and Naomi. When these things are done, day after day, with regularity and consistency, they say something about character. Ruth was a woman of disciplined character. Right and wrong were settled issues with her. Doing what was right had become a habit of life. Her daily consistency in doing what was right reveals her great faith in the Lord, because only by faith does the believer consistently do right in a world that consistently does wrong. The second detail the Narrator provides seems insignificant and a bit redundant, but is neither: Ruth “dwelt with her mother-in-law.” ”Well, of course she did,” you say, “where else would she live.” That’s the point. By now many others would have noticed Ruth. Boaz makes a statement to that effect in 3:10. Ruth could have married or moved out on her own, and let Naomi glean for herself. She did neither. The fact Naomi is called “her mother-in-law” reinforces the positive evaluation of Ruth’s character. The narrator stresses the relationship, not the persons. Ruth remained where she was, fulfilling her responsibilities to her mother-in-law. Ruth and Naomi were bound by culture and marriage, but Ruth could have left Naomi for another marriage, a marriage where Naomi might be left to fend for herself. That Ruth remained reveals her respect for the laws of society and culture, and her deep commitment to do the right thing no matter what the cost. Ruth was paying a great cost in this relationship, not the least being the manual labor in gleaning, when she could have easily attracted a potential husband. Ruth reveals her self-discipline, her willingness to, in effect, prove herself and earn her reward. She can see beyond immediate gratification to a better future. That she remained with Naomi is neither insignificant nor redundant. Ruth was a woman of great and noble character, and one would do well to emulate her. That Ruth remains with Naomi may also imply that contact with Boaz is neither as frequent nor as meaningful as Naomi and Ruth need. The narrator thus sets the stage for chapter three.

39

Ruth Three

1 Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? 2 “Now Boaz, whose young women you were with, is he not our relative? In fact, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. 3 “Therefore wash yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 “Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do.” 5 And she said to her, “All that you say to me I will do.” 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law instructed her. Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her About 45 to 60 days have passed from the initial meeting between Ruth and Boaz. During that time she has gleaned in his fields every day. The consistency of that effort would make a strong impression on the villagers, the reapers, the other gleaners, and of course, on Boaz. Ruth is consistent, hard working, true to her values, faithful to her mother-in-law, in short a virtuous woman (3:11). Yet, at the end of the harvest, there has been no movement on the part of Boaz, nor of the unnamed closer kinsman (3:12), to redeem the land or marry Ruth. The end of the harvest season means the potential for daily contact with Boaz has ended. Why hasn’t the man made a move would seem to be the question on Naomi’s heart, and she decides to make the first move. Should Naomi’s actions be judged as impatience or understand as putting feet to prayer? On the one hand it might sais that Naomi (and Ruth) have prayed to YHWH to provide their daily bread, and he has replied through the kindnesses of Boaz. Should they not wait again for the Lord to move Boaz in the right direction (to redeem them and their land)? After all, Ruth has come “under his wings for refuge.” To try and move things along at this time would seem presumptuous; like asking the Lord to bless a work after we have started it. At 2:2 YHWH honored their prayers, but action was required on Ruth’s part to provide the opportunity for God to act. Naomi is now providing another opportunity for God to bless, or not, as he sees fit. Boaz’s consistency over this period of time also has meaning. His reapers have continued to follow his instructions, and that demonstration of consistency in his character–to continue to show Ruth favor through the two harvest seasons–speaks of the man’s character, and of the Lord’s continued work in his heart. Naomi has seen the Lord answer her prayers. Now is the time to act based upon those answers. If the Lord is in it, the outcome will be well; if not, they will fail. Prayer and action always go hand-in-hand. Ruth sought favor in gleaning, and then went, found that favor, and gleaned. Every believer should have this same “seek and you shall find” attitude in prayer. The man or woman who asks the Lord to help them overcome some physical addiction–smoking, for example–must actually quit and depend upon the Lord for the grace to stay quit. The person who has a difficult co-worker may ask the Lord for victory, but must still go to work every day and interact with that difficult person on the basis of Christian ethics. Believers are themselves often the channel though which prayed-for grace will come. Naomi saw that the Lord had answered her prayers to this point. She decides to act on the grace and blessings the Lord has already given. Also, it is not impossible to believe that Naomi has been “pushed” by the Holy Spirit 40

Ruth Three

to take this action. The timing seems right, in that all hearts have been prepared. Such timing is a signal that the Lord was present and working. A believer must have the same faith as Naomi who, seeing what the Lord had wrought in response to earlier prayers, was prepared in faith to respond to the opportunity the Lord had given her in response to those prayers. Such conviction is also of the Lord, his response to her faith and prayers.

shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Naomi’s reference to security means a peaceful life, or a well-secured position in life; in other words, the security of a husband. “This is a general statement by which she means the removal of the reproach of her widowhood and the solution of her destitution by securing the economic necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing) and the calming of her anxieties concerning the future.”135 Naomi is again acting out of her cultural imperative to provide for her daughter-in-law, as she did when she persuaded Orpah to return to her Moabite culture to find her own security in family and, hopefully, a husband. Now it is Ruth’s turn, and Naomi and the Lord have worked for this moment. Naomi knows Boaz is a near kinsman. She knows Boaz has been kind to Ruth, more so than civility and society required. But he has made no move to marry Ruth, nor to redeem Naomi’s land.136 The fact she repeats this information to Ruth (is he not our relative?137) indicates there has been much discussion between the two women, as does 3:9. There is no reason to believe Ruth is opposed to these actions. The Narrator does not tell us, anywhere in this book, of Ruth’s emotions. One recognizes her loyalty, her obedience, and her faith. Does she have any affection for Boaz? Does anxiety about the future drive her actions? Ruth is not trapped into marrying Boaz, as he recognizes, 3:10. There is an informed consent on her part, and I choose to believe she has some affection for Boaz. One wonders at the content of her prayers as Boaz confronts the nearerkinsman, 4:3ff. Another factor which may be driving this action is found at 4:3. There Boaz announces that Naomi “sold the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech.” I will address this in depth at that verse, but the Hebrew text seems to indicate that Naomi has offered the land for sale, but has not sold the land. The necessities of life require more than gleaned grain, and apparently Naomi is now forced to sell the land in order to get money for life’s necessities. If Boaz buys the land from Naomi, and marries Ruth, then he has in effect redeemed the land for the purpose of the “perpetuating the name of the dead through his inheritance” (4:5, 10). The selling of the land makes this the perfect time to approach Boaz and remind him of his duty and opportunity as a near-kinsman. Naomi has an opportunity to provide marriage for Ruth and ensure her (Naomi’s) tribal lands remain in the family, specifically in the family of Elimelech. Faith, prayer, and the Lord have converged to create the circumstances to supply the opportunity for redemption and marriage; Naomi’s actions are, in my judgement, of the Lord.

Now Boaz, whose young women you were with, is he not our relative? The point is not who is Boaz, but who is Ruth. The answer is that Ruth is a member of the Block, Judges, Ruth, 681. Naomi may not know that there is a kinsman nearer than Boaz (3:12). 137 The question form, for example, “Is he not our relative?” was used as a statement in the Hebrew, with the understood answer of yes. 135 136

41

Ruth Three

family of Elimelech, for Boaz is “our” relative. “Since her marriage to Mahlon she too has a family connection with Boaz and thus he is described as our kinsman.”138 The fact that he is “our” relative defines the relationship Ruth has to the redemption of the land and raising up an heir for Naomi who will inherit the land (4:5, 14). In this context she is not Ruth the Moabite, but is the widow of Mahlon, daughter-in-law of Naomi and Elimelech, an Israelite. All of Naomi’s and Boaz’s plans depend upon Ruth being “our” relative.

In fact, Boaz is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Here is the opportunity to meet privately with Boaz. Naomi’s statement raises many questions. One must accept the fact that Naomi knew where Boaz would be, that at some point he would be alone, and that Ruth would be able to meet with him privately. There are many cultural details that are not known. One can surmise that Boaz took an active interest in the threshing (winnowing) of the grain. There may have been some ritual associated with threshing the grain; or perhaps the owner of the grain (Boaz), could not entrust the safety of the grain (from thieves or animals) to a hired employee. (Or, “Perhaps Boaz did not do this in person every night, and this may be the force of Naomi’s tonight. This would then be one of the nights when Boaz was on duty.”139) Whatever the reason, Naomi knew Boaz would be at the threshing floor that night. Boaz would start threshing in the late afternoon and into the evening, then remain with the grain overnight. There may have been one common threshing floor used by the village, and therefore a schedule would be in effect, telling Naomi when Boaz would be present. The threshing floor would not be large, requiring several days to winnow a complete harvest. “Barley was typically threshed at the onset of the dry season (late May-June), after all the grain, both barley and wheat, was cut and gathered.”140 One assumes, probably rightly, that Boaz’s employees would perform the actual winnowing. A village threshing floor was usually at a location lower in elevation from the village to take advantage of the winds flowing down from the village’s higher elevation.141 Winnowing was usually done in the late afternoon, early evening, for that same reason, i.e., the setting sun caused falling temperatures which generated a breeze. The stalks were beaten or stomped (by an oxen) to separate the grain from the stalk. The kernels and the beaten stalks were gathered into a shallow basket and the whole thrown into the air. The wind would blow away the lighter chaff–the stalks and husks–and the heavier grain kernels would fall back, some on the floor and some into the basket, depending on the wind and the skill of the winnower. The process sounds simple, but the work involved was exhausting and time consuming. The kernels of grain were sifted through a sieve and collected in piles. The straw (beaten stalks and husks) were collected and used as animal feed and the chaff was used for fuel.

Therefore wash yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment

Morris, Ruth, 285. Morris, Ruth, 285. 140 Block, Judges, Ruth, 682. 141 Block, Ruth, 682, says the opposite. He notes a hard surface was needed to keep the grain free of dirt and facilitate sweeping up the kernels. A rock outcrop on a hill would serve that purpose, and the hilltop location would take advantage of the wind. 138 139

42

Ruth Three

Ruth is to wash and anoint herself (probably with scented oil) and put on her “best” garment. The probability of poor Ruth having a “best” garment (the word “best” is supplied by some translators) is small, but not impossible, as women will often save back one garment for special occasions and wear all others to rags to save the one. More probably Naomi is referring to the heavy mantle,142 a large outer garment which would completely cover Ruth, thus keeping her from being recognized during her walk to and from the threshing floor. The mantle would also serve to warm her against the night air. Naomi may have instructed Ruth to dress as a bride. “Although not obvious in the context, extrabiblical parallels using “bathe, anoint, dress up,” together suggest that Naomi possibly instructed Ruth to dress as bride.”143 (Ruth may have been wearing her mourning clothes since the death of Mahlon. If so, Naomi has instructed her change into other clothes to signal her availability for marriage. However, would Boaz have noticed this in the dark? For that matter, would he have noticed bride clothes? The perfume to make her smell pretty and a mantle to keep her warm seem more reasonable.) The women are taking some risks. If seen going to or from the threshing floor some in the village might assume Ruth was going there for a licentious purpose (4:14). Boaz might not be alone, adding to the risk. Her perfume (anoint yourself) might give her away, or she might be discovered hiding. Risks aside, Naomi and Ruth prepare carefully so Ruth makes the best presentation of herself. She will not go like a beggar in rags, but as an attractive and desirable woman. Ruth was to wait until Boaz had finished eating and drinking. A meal would be the final act after a day of hard work, and then, as the sun set, would come sleep. A full stomach after hard work tends to sleep, which would give Ruth opportunity to enter the threshing floor and make her way, unseen, to Boaz.

and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do. Once at the threshing floor Ruth was to hide herself, watching Boaz to determine where he would rest for the night. The threshing floor would not have been very large, but the night would be dark, lit only by the moon, or perhaps a torch. There is a possibility some of Boaz’s servants would be with him, but from the tale of events it would seem Boaz was alone, or, if others were present, he was separated from them. Once Boaz was asleep (this is assumed in vv.4 and 7), Ruth was to go to the place where he lay, uncover his feet, and lay down (at his feet is understood) and wait. When Boaz discovers her, Naomi says, he will tell Ruth what to do next. This has primary reference to the ultimate goal of their plan, to wit, marriage and the redemption of Naomi’s land (v. 9). The instruction to “uncover his feet” has generated much discussion among commentators. Some believe the feet are euphemistic of sexual organs (e.g., Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3 where ‘attend to his needs’ is literally ‘uncovers his feet’ and is a euphemism for going to the bathroom, i.e., exposing his sexual organ to urinate or defecate). In this interpretation ‘uncovering his feet’ indicates a proposal for sexual activity. Apparently prostitutes would use the threshing floors, at harvest time, as an opportunity to ply their trade. Some commentators suggest Naomi is directing Ruth offer herself sexually to Boaz. Since marriage is the object, an offer to fornicate seems unlikely. Although the Hebrew words for uncover, feet and lie down may be understood in a sexual connotation, there is no contextual need to interpret the text in this manner. Every word 142 143

Morris, Ruth, 286. Think of the mantle as a large blanket. Hubbard, Ruth, 202.

43

Ruth Three

and deed of Naomi and Ruth suggest morality, not illicit sex. Considering that Ruth is a Moabite, there is the temptation to compare her to Tamar, another Moabite (Genesis 38, 500+ years earlier), who did not hesitate to pretend to be a prostitute to gain an heir. But the Narrator and all the characters in the story act and speak in a manner which indicates morality is a guiding characteristic of their lives. The sexual interpretation of the passage is to be rejected. Naomi has calculated the success of her plan in the details she has explained to Ruth. She has assured the two would be alone by instructing Ruth to be neither seen nor heard (v. 3) until Boaz is asleep. She has ensured Boaz would be in a good mood with his belly full and himself rested, to ensure congenial conversation. She has made sure Boaz would awake by having Ruth expose his feet to the cooling night air, and she has ensured, by having Ruth wait before uncovering his feet, that he would not wake too soon, i.e., he would awake after the others (if any) had fallen asleep or had left. Ruth is bathed and perfumed, but modestly dressed with her large mantle. Naomi trusts in the character of the man to ensure he will not understand Ruth’s presence at his feet to be a sexual advance (and thus be offended and send her away). Will the Lord honor her ingenuity?

And she said to her, “All that you say to me I will do.” So she went down to the threshing floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law instructed her. God has set Naomi as the guide and protector of Ruth. Naomi is the one who brings Ruth to the redeemer. Ruth is prepared to do whatever her mother-in-law tells her to do. Her confidence in Naomi bespeaks her faith in the Lord.

7 And after Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was cheerful, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came softly, uncovered his feet, and lay down. 8 Now it happened at midnight that the man was startled, and turned himself; and there, a woman was lying at his feet. 9 And he said, “Who are you?” So she answered, “I am Ruth, your maidservant. Take your maidservant under your wing, for you are a close relative.” And after Boaz had eaten and drunk Boaz is not drunk, as the debauched times we live in might lead us to suppose. He was refreshed by his meal after long day of hard work. Anyone who has physically labored an entire afternoon from lunch to supper knows how refreshing the dinner is; and how sleepy one becomes on a full stomach. “The point was that his mood was very mellow–a smiling Boaz lounging on the floor, staring at the stars, and savoring the quiet euphoria of the good life.”144 Boaz has finished his day’s work, eaten, and lays down for the night. Sleep is assumed in verse seven, for Ruth could hardly have uncovered his feet without his knowledge if he were awake. Remember also that in this agrarian culture people tended to wake and sleep with the rise and fall of the sun. As darkness stole over the land Boaz went to sleep, and Ruth crept forward and uncovered his feet. Then she lay down at his feet, waiting.

Now it happened at midnight that the man was startled, and turned himself; and there, a woman was lying at his feet 144

Hubbard, Ruth, 202ff.

44

Ruth Three

At midnight (literally: “in the middle, or half, of the night”), Boaz woke up, trembling. The Hebrew means to “tremble,” usually from fear, but here probably means he “shivered” from the cold because his feet (possibly uncovered up to his knees) were uncovered. Some commentators indicate their belief Boaz was scared because he found someone at his feet. However, that inverts the order of events. Boaz woke up, turned himself (probably to one side on his elbow to reach for the blanket), and saw “a woman” at his feet. While cold feet played their part, I believe the Lord used that physical discomfort to cause Boaz to wake up and look around. His awaking was crucial to Naomi’s plan, and the one thing she couldn‘t control. After a hard day’s labor there was the possibility he would sleep until morning. I believe the Lord, always working on behalf of his servants, caused Boaz to awake, which in turn caused him to look around for the blanket, and in looking down at his feet (to grasp the blanket) he discovered “a woman” at his feet. In the darkness he could not recognize Ruth. This is either an insert by the narrator, or a comment by the narrator indicating Boaz’s state of mind. How, in the darkness, could he know the person at his feet was a woman? He could smelled her perfume (scented oil).

And he said, “Who are you?” “Who are you,” Boaz demands, indicating he did not recognize her, and Ruth replies, “I am Ruth, your maidservant. Take your maidservant under your wing, for you are a close relative.” Naomi may have given her these words (and the narrator did not tell the reader). Or, they may have come from Ruth as appropriate to her understanding of the situation.145 One cannot say with certainty, but I believe these words originated with Ruth, not Naomi. Ruth, by now, understands the laws and customs concerning the kinsman-redeemer and marriage of the childless widow. Naomi’s brief mention (v. 2) of Boaz as “our relative” indicates Ruth did understand, for she needed no further explanation, and she agreed to the plan (vv. 5, 6). Ruth’s reply communicates many things to Boaz. “I am Ruth” identifies the woman at his feet as the woman he has some interest in. Her identification of herself as “your maidservant” is interesting. She takes a lowly place before him, not taking anything for granted, but acting in humility. The word she uses for maidservant, amah,146 is not the same word she used in 2:13 (sipha), but a word which indicates a less menial position, a servant who is eligible for marriage.147 “I come as your maidservant,” she says, “but not as a servant.” In context she is saying she wants to become Mrs. Boaz. When Ruth says, “Take your maidservant under your wing,” she is using the Hebrew word kanap which means “garment-corner,” and can be translated as “Spread the corner of your garment over your maidservant.”148 The word is similar to kenapayim, wings [of refuge], used by Boaz in 2:12, and invites the comparison, which is why the KJV translators and the NKJV revisors used the word “wing” versus the more accurate “garment-corner.” Because of the similarity Boaz may have been reminded of his own words (2:12), and Ruth was probably trying to make that association. Ruth has placed complete trust in the Lord; now she is placing her trust in Boaz as well. When Ruth asks Boaz to spread his garment over her, the image of covering and uncovering has 145

It would seem Naomi and Ruth were after the same goal: redemption of the land as well as marriage. Naomi notes, 3:2, that Boaz “is our relative.” If marriage for Ruth was the only goal, there was no need to remind Ruth (and the reader) that Boaz was a kinsman, and therefore Ruth says he is go el to her. 146 See on 2:13. Ruth uses amah to indicate her willingness to become Boaz’s wife. 147 Morris, Ruth, 289. 148 Hubbard, Ruth, 207, 212.

45

Ruth Three

a definite sexual connotation to it, i.e., both being under the same covering, which in the Bible means either marriage or a defiling of the marriage relationship, see Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20, and compare with Ezekiel 16:8. The latter passage especially expresses the thought that covering with a garment involves a covenant relationship. Here in Ruth 3:9 the covenant relationship being sought is that of marriage, which Boaz completely understood. “That the idiom (paras kanap`al) means to marry is evident from its use in Ezekiel 16:8 . . . and from Boaz’s response here (v. 10).”149 The final words, “for you are a near kinsman,” are the basis for Ruth’s proposal of marriage. If Boaz is to marry Ruth, as he desires, he must do so in the context of redeeming the land which Naomi sold, and raising up a child with Ruth to inherit that land (because Ruth was the dead man’s representative). Everyone involved believed that redeeming the land of the deceased should include marriage of the deceased’s childless widow, 4:5, 10.

10 Then he said, “Blessed are you of the LORD, my daughter! For you have shown more kindness at the end than at the beginning, in that you did not go after young men, whether poor or rich. 11 “And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you request, for all the people of my town know that you are a virtuous woman. 12 “Now it is true that I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 “Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a close relative for you–good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the LORD lives! Lie down until morning.” Then he said, As is natural in those of a godly disposition, Boaz first returns thanks to YHWH. He clearly understands that Ruth wants to marry him, something which he also desires. His reaction is one of being greatly blessed by the Lord and his response is as spontaneous as it is genuine. Ruth’s actions are praiseworthy and thus she is to be blessed by YHWH. Boaz’s appeal to YHWH also indicates he perceives YHWH as the One who had made this moment happen. “In everything give thanks!” “Daughter” is used as a term of respect. Boaz’s reference to Ruth’s kindness at the beginning refers back to 2:11, meaning the kindness she had shown to the deceased and to Naomi. The focus is on family. In the beginning Ruth turned her life around and showed kindness to Naomi, adopting her, and Israel, as her true family. Now she continues that kindness by turning to an older man who will be able to raise up an inheritance for the dead, 4:5, 10. “She has not followed her natural inclinations (in seeking a young man in marriage) but has shown a responsible attitude to the family in looking to her go el as her marriage partner.”150 All along Ruth thinks of others before thinking of herself. “She could have married for love (“poor”) or money (“rich”), but she choose family loyalty instead.”151

I will do for you all that you request A much younger man might have refused to fulfill his duty toward the family of Elimelech, even after the marriage. But Boaz is older, wiser, and more honorable. Ruth–and Naomi–have made a 149 150 151

Hubbard, Ruth, 207, 212. Morris, Ruth, 290. Hubbard, Ruth, 214, 215.

46

Ruth Three

wise choice in Boaz. He immediately accepts Ruth’s proposal of marriage, without fear of ruining his good name, despite the fact Ruth was a Moabite. As to Ruth, when we remember that she has been in town about 45 to 60 days we see just how remarkable a woman she was. The entire village knew Ruth was “virtuous” in her character and behavior. The same word is used to describe Boaz, 2:1, where it is translated “great wealth,” the idea being that of great worth, strength, or character.152 This may be Boaz’s way of telling Ruth not to worry about being a Moabite. She is his peer, thus a woman worthy for him to marry. She has made a good impression on everyone in the village and no one will object to her marrying Boaz. Moreover, because she is known as a virtuous woman, no one can object to Boaz fulfilling his role as kinsman-redeemer by bringing her into the larger Israelite family through marriage and children.

Now it is true that I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. There is one problem with their plans: Naomi has a kinsman who is a nearer relation than Boaz. There was apparently a familial order in the process of redemption.153 That Boaz knew this indicates he has explored thoughts of marrying Ruth and prepared for the possibility. Whether or not Naomi knew this is unknown, but also unimportant. She appears to have trusted that only Boaz would be willing to marry as well as redeem. There was no obligation in the Law of Moses for Boaz to marry Ruth, because the widow of the land’s owner was Naomi, not Ruth. Naomi is appealing to and counting on Boaz’s sense of moral obligation to the family, as well as his obvious feelings toward Ruth. “In this matter she will not be disappointed. The lives of genuinely good people are not governed by laws but character and a moral sense of right and wrong.”154 Boaz will find a way to rescue her from widowhood and poverty. If the land was redeemed without marriage, Ruth and Naomi would receive no benefit: the land would go to the kinsman, remaining within the tribe (if not the family) of Elimelech, thus satisfying the law. Ruth had to marry the redeemer for Naomi and Ruth to benefit, and for the land to remain with Elimelech’s heirs, i.e., children by Ruth. Important to our understanding of Boaz is this reference to his character. He knows and admits that there is a kinsman whose right of redemption is before himself. He does not try to scheme a way of out this predicament, but admits and accepts the fact. Ruth may or may not be his to marry; Boaz emphasizes family over self. However, Boaz does want to emphasize to Ruth his willingness and determination to marry her. Boaz does not use the word marry when referring to the other kinsman, preferring the phrase, “perform the duty of a close relative to you.” And he emphasizes himself, “I will perform the duty for you,” and seals his word with an appeal to YHWH, “as the Lord lives!” Boaz will find someway within the law to secure the right of redemption and marriage. And what will the Lord do? Just when it seemed that all obstacles were removed between Boaz and Ruth, a very serious obstacle is found. Regardless of personal feelings the family must continue, whether or not it continues with Boaz. But, is the Lord so heartless, so removed from the feelings of his people? Boaz, at the least, has affection toward Ruth and a desire to marry her (he just felt too old and thus unworthy). Ruth’s emotions are not revealed by the Narrator, but it is reasonable to assume she has affection for Boaz. What will the Lord do to see these two people united in marriage? The reader must surely ask that question, and thus the hand of the Lord is seen 152 153 154

Compare Proverbs 31:10 “a virtuous wife,” and 12:4 “an excellent wife.” Compare Leviticus 25:48-49; Numbers 27:8-11. Block, Judges, Ruth, 696.

47

Ruth Three

once and again in this human drama. Just because things don’t work out easily is no reason they cannot or will not work out. Faith, prayer, and acting in faith will see the matter to it’s conclusion. Boaz now prepares Ruth for the morrow. If the other kinsman will redeem the land and marry the woman, Boaz is prepared to accept this as the best for Ruth. If this other will not, Boaz will redeem the land and marry Ruth, and he calls upon the Lord as his witness. The language has the same intent as that in 1:17, a covenant oath. That being settled, Boaz takes some care for Ruth. His main concern is their mutual reputations in this small town.155 Should it be known Ruth had spent the night at the threshing floor with Boaz, her reputation, and her deliverance at the hands of the other kinsman redeemer, might be in jeopardy. An accusation of fornication would have destroyed them: no redemption, no marriage, no future. Additionally, if the nearer kinsman discovered that Boaz and Ruth wanted to marry he might redeem the land and then re-sell it to Boaz for a higher price. There was every reason to keep this matter between the three of them alone (Ruth, Boaz and Naomi). The careful reader will note that Boaz did not cover Ruth with the corner of his garment, as asked. There can be no betrothal nor marriage until the issue of the nearer kinsman is resolved.

14 So she lay at his feet until morning, and she arose before one could recognize another. Then he said, “Do not let it be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.” 15 Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. So she lay at his feet until morning Did either of them sleep? One imagines Boaz praying and planning for his meeting with the elders and the nearer kinsman, and Ruth praying for her future. They probably did sleep, but excitement or anxiety roused them well before daylight. She arose first, then he revealed he was also awake. He counsels her to remain discreet about their midnight meeting. Awaking and leaving the threshing floor before dawn would ensure no one was about to see them. She must not speak to anyone (except Naomi) about the events of the night. The town gossips could make much of their clandestine meeting: “an older man victimized by a seductive Moabitess, a clandestine lover’s tryst. A conspiracy to get around the law and defraud the nearer kinsman.”156 Ruth might even be sent back to Moab; or the nearer kinsman might “wring more than the normal concessions from Boaz before waiving his rights as go el.”157 Possibly as a measure to try and prevent just such gossip (but see v. 17), in case someone should see Ruth coming from the threshing floor, Boaz gave her some winnowed grain. She put it in her shawl, which is a different garment from that mentioned in 3:3, and may have been a head covering separate from the outer mantle. How much grain she received is not specifically stated, for the Hebrew text simply says six measures, literally “six of barley.” Probably Boaz used his hands or some immediately available cup or bowl and put “six measures” of grain into her shawl. If the amount was merely intended to make it appear that Ruth had come early to the threshing floor (or early to glean again the harvested fields) to gain some additional blessing from Boaz, whose The narrator also understands. Boaz tells her to lun, “to stay,” versus sakab “to lie down,” which can have a sexual connotation. 156 Hubbard, Ruth, 221. 157 Hubbard, Ruth, 221. 155

48

Ruth Three

generosity toward her was by now known all over the village, then the amount is of no consequence. An early morning visit to the fields or the threshing floor would not arouse any suspicions. Boaz “laid it on her” and she went on her way. That he laid the grain upon her, across her shoulders or on her head, leads some to believe the measure was the seah, one-third of an ephah, which in six measures would yield a weight between 58-95 pounds, which seems a little too heavy for her to carry back to town.158 After she received the grain, the NKJV reads “Then she went into the city,” but the Masoretic text has the masculine159 which indicates Boaz left first. Though he may not have finished winnowing the grain he had a mission to perform, and quickly left so as to be at the gate when the nearer kinsman came by.

16 So when she came to her mother-in-law, she said, “Is that you, my daughter?” Then she told her all that the man had done for her. 17 And she said, “These six ephahs of barley he gave me; for he said to me, ‘Do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law.’” 18 Then she said, “Sit still, my daughter, until you know how the matter will turn out; for the man will not rest until he has concluded the matter this day.” Then she told her all that the man had done for her. Naomi, of course, has been up all night, pacing the floor, wondering what has happened at the threshing floor. Her question to Ruth is not meant as “Who are you?” The NKJV gives the proper reading of the Hebrew text, but “the question in Hebrew expects an answer about the character or condition behind the name,”160 as indicated by Ruth’s answer. Naomi is asking something to the effect of “Did he agree to marry you?” or, “How did your meeting go?” Hubbard translates the text as “How do things stand with you?”161 which expresses the intent, if not the actual words of the text.162 The narrator gives only the briefest summary before reporting a few of Ruth’s actual words, but they are important words. Ruth explains the barley saying,

‘Do not go empty-handed to your mother-in-law.’ As in verse 15, the actual unit of measure (ephah) is not in the Hebrew text, which reads “these six of barley,” and we can imagine Ruth pointing to the grain. Ruth then reports something Boaz said which was not included in the report of the conversation at the threshing floor. In giving her the barley Boaz states that Ruth is not to go home “empty-handed” to Naomi. I believe that the grain serves as a kind of mohar (dowry163), which, when coming from the prospective husband, was

Six omers would weigh between 17-28 pounds, but omer is a masculine noun and the grammar calls for the feminine seah or ephah. 159 So Hubbard, Ruth, 222, and Block, Judges, Ruth, 698. 160 Morris, Ruth, 296. 161 Hubbard, Ruth, 223. 162 So also Block, Judges, Ruth, 698, “How did it go, my daughter?” 158

163 The dowry was also the gift of the family to the bride, which she brought to the marriage. The dowry often served as financial insurance for the bride, although servants, cities, animals, even children (Genesis 30:20), were sometimes given as dowry. See Bromiley, Encyclopedia, I: 989.

49

a marriage present, or a bride-price.164 Coming from Boaz it was a pledge that he would carry through on Naomi’s proposal165 of redemption and marriage. “The mohar was often given by the groom at the time of betrothal, not as a purchase price (women were not commodities to be bought and sold) but as a promise to prepare for the wedding in good faith and a pledge for the good behavior of the groom toward the bride in the meantime.”166 Some commentators find in the barley a reference, by the narrator, to 1:21. Naomi came back empty–both economically and childless. Through the grain Boaz has answered her physical emptiness, and through the grain he is also making a pledge to answer the emptiness of childlessness. This is the last time one hears from Ruth. From here on the story focuses on Boaz and Naomi. In fact, from the beginning the book has been about Naomi and her problems. Ruth and Boaz were the means to resolve Naomi’s plight of loneliness, emptiness and childlessness. Chapter four will see Naomi finally satisfied, her prayers answered. Ruth’s advancement in Israelite society is both amazing and hopeful. She began as a foreigner and became a citizen. She was a poor gleaner and married a wealthy man. She was a lowly servant, and in the end is pronounced a worthy woman, a peer to Boaz, in effect his equal. She was a childless widow and became married and a mother. Ruth’s life and blessings exemplifies the concept of hesed, that is, blessing from YHWH. Though outside the congregation of God’s people she was brought into a relationship with the Lord and made one of his people. If a gentile–even a Moabite–can enter the congregation of Israel through faith, then there is hope for all who worship Israel’s God.

the man will not rest until he has concluded the matter this day Naomi understood the barley as Boaz’s pledge to redeem the land and marry Ruth. She also had sufficient understanding of Boaz’s character to know that he would immediately take action to settle the matter. Ruth Four

1 Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there; and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz had spoken came by. So Boaz said, “Come aside, friend, sit down here.” So he came aside and sat down. 2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. 3 Then he said to the close relative, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, sold the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. 4 “And I thought to inform you, saying, ‘Buy it back in the presence of the inhabitants and the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am next after you.‘” And he said, “I will redeem it.” Many ancient cities were protected by a wall to secure the populace from bands of robbers (Judges 11:3), or armies of hostile nations. The gate was the entrance to the city, but it provided more than security. The gate was the center of public life. Open areas were provided near the gate Bromiley, Encyclopedia, I: 989. Ruth made the actual proposal, but Boaz knew it came from Naomi. Ruth’s interests would have been satisfied by marriage, but Naomi needed the land and an heir for her security. Naomi and Boaz knew–far better than Ruth–the cultural subtleties and family politics involved in the redemption of the land and marriage to Ruth. 166 Block, Judges, Ruth, 700. 164 165

50

Ruth Four

to be used for markets.167 The area at the gate was also used for public assemblies and legal tribunals, and thus served as a public court. Every citizen, even the farmers, slept in the city, and therefore passed through the gate morning and evening.168 At the gate Boaz could meet the nearer kinsman as he was going out to his fields early in the morning. Seeing the kinsman approach, Boaz invites him to sit; perhaps Boaz said something to the effect that he had business to transact. Then, Boaz selected ten men from the elders of the city to form a judicial counsel. Though the reader is not told, in some fashion Boaz communicated the purpose of this assembly. In the open area of the gate a series of small alcoves were lined with benches (off the main passage through the wall) to provide a place for the elders to sit. Other benches were in the open area for citizens to sit and watch the proceedings.169 Interestingly, and inexplicably to interpreters, Boaz addresses the kinsman as “Mr. So-andSo.”170 One would assume the kinsman’s name had been passed down through oral history (perhaps not), but the most reasonable explanation (to me) is that the narrator, at some distance from the actual events, did not know the name.171 Another question is why Boaz selected ten elders to, in effect, notarize the decisions of the day. We have no knowledge of the number of men required for this legal proceeding, and the Hebrew text suggests there were more than ten elders in the city. Boaz took ten men (Hebrew, min, literally, some of172) from the city’s elders. Bullinger gives this explanation of the significance of the number 10: “Completeness of order, marking the entire round of anything, is, therefore, the ever-present signification of the number ten. It implies that nothing is wanting; that the number and order are perfect; that the whole cycle is complete.”173 The significance here is a legally-binding quorum to ratify the redemption of the land and of Ruth. The people coming to the gate early that morning paused to see what would happen, to watch and discover why these men had gathered in public assembly.

“Naomi. . . sold the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. The term “brother” in v. 3 does not necessarily indicate a literal brother, i.e., of the same mother and father. Terms such as brother, father, and grandfather were used rather loosely by the Old Testament peoples. What Boaz means is that there is a family obligation to redeem the land, and he wants to know if this nearer relative intends to fulfill that obligation. In the English translation it appears as though Naomi had sold the land when she returned. However, there is no third person present at these negotiations. If Naomi had already sold the land would the owner need to be present to conduct the redemptive transaction with Boaz or “Mr. So-and-So”? Perhaps not, since the question at hand was not actual purchase but the intent to redeem. However, vv. 5 and 9 state the land was to be purchased from Naomi. Although the Hebrew is in the perfect tense (indicating an action already completed), the context requires the present. “In such formal legal declarations, the perfect was apparently the appropriate form to declare chronologically present 167

Thus, gates were named after the product sold, such as the sheep gate and fish gate, Nehemiah 3:1, 3, or the activity, such as the refuse gate, Nehemiah 2:13. 168 Bromiley, Encyclopedia, II: 408. 169 Hubbard, Ruth, 233. 170 Hubbard, Ruth, 234. 171 The name may have been deliberately obscured in the family oral history so as not to embarrass the man’s family for declining to marry Ruth. 172 Harris, et al, Theological Wordbook, article 1212. 173 Bullinger, Number in Scripture, 243.

51

Ruth Four

action. In sum, at the outset Boaz announced Naomi’s intent to sell Elimelech’s property.”174 This raises the interesting question of when Naomi put the land up for sale. Is Boaz explaining a new thing unknown to the brother, or is he simply explaining a situation both already knew? Putting the land up for sale may explain why Naomi picked this particular time to send Ruth to the threshing floor. Naomi may have set the stage by offering the land for sale and Ruth to Boaz at the same time. Buying the land from Naomi raises the question of the nature of the redemption process. Redemption of a piece of land was the process of buying back the family land from someone who was not of the family in order to return the land to the family. Since Naomi still owned the land, how could this be redemptive as described in the law of Moses? The solution to this question is the intent of the law of redemption (Leviticus 25). The land was to remain in the possession of the family to whom it had been granted as an inheritance by Moses and Joshua.175 At some point her poverty would force Naomi to sell the land. Neither she nor Ruth were physically able to plow, sow, and reap the land; nor did they have the resources to hire laborers. Apparently no one wanted to rent the land–they owned lands, and if they wanted more property could wait for Naomi to put her land up for sale. Naomi’s poverty ensured the land would be sold at some future date. By “redeeming” Elimelech’s land from Naomi, Boaz ensured the land was not sold to a stranger, and thus remained within the clan. By marrying Ruth, and producing an heir, Boaz ensured the land remained within the family of Elimelech.176 Another point of view177 notes that as a widow Naomi could not own, and therefore could not sell, the land (cf. Proverbs 15:25; 31:16). This view suggests Elimelech had sold the land prior to leaving for Moab. If such was the case, then Naomi may have been giving up her right to the return of the land in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25). This explanation overcomes the objection that, if the land had been sold by Elimelech, the legal owner of the land was not present at the legal meeting called by Boaz, because what Boaz was redeeming was not the land, but Naomi’s right to ownership of the land at the Jubilee. After considering these, and other options, I prefer the solution that Boaz is buying the land from Naomi. Boaz carefully explains the situation, probably more for the elders’ benefit than for the brother’s. I would imagine the man knew the circumstances, but had not wanted to invest his capital in redeeming the land, especially as Boaz had appeared to have no interest in it. Now, confronted by Boaz, he makes his lawful claim.

And I thought to inform you, saying Boaz mentions only the property, not Ruth. Family is important to Boaz, and marriage to Ruth was on his mind. The only reason Boaz did not approach Ruth earlier was his belief that she would want a younger husband. He could have married Ruth without redeeming the land. However, both Boaz and the townspeople seem to believe that redemption of the land should include marriage to the widow of the owner (in this case Mahlon, Elimelech’s heir), in order to raise up an heir who could take possession of the redeemed land in the name of the original owner. This cultural link Hubbard, Ruth, 239. The law of Jubilees ensured that condition by cancelling all sales every fifty years. 176 This explains why Ruth was part of the transaction: for the land to remain in the family of Elimelech there must be an heir of Elimelech to take possession of the land. The land would remain in the family of Elimelech through the wife of Mahlon. 177 Block, Judges, Ruth, 709, 710. 174 175

52

Ruth Four

between redemption and marriage is the reason Boaz mentions only the property to the nearer kinsman. There was no legal requirement to marry Ruth (neither man was a literal brother to Elimelech), but linking marriage to Ruth with redemption of the land, in order to raise up an heir for the dead, was reasonable to the intent of the law of redemption. Boaz wants Ruth and the land. He is apparently holding back Ruth as his “ace-in-the-hole” in case the kinsman decides to redeem the land.

for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am next after you We do not know the order of redemptive eligibility, but that an order existed is sure. That order may be based upon other laws regarding redemption, e.g., Leviticus 25:47-49 and inheritance, Numbers 27:1-11. The emphatic “I” may indicate there was none other to redeem the land after Boaz.178

And he said, “I will redeem it.” A quick evaluation shows that redemption of Naomi’s land will bring rich rewards to “Mr. Soand-So.” “For very little money he could carry out a respected family duty and perhaps enhance his civic reputation. Financially, the investment was a bargain without risk. There were no known heirs of Elimelech to reclaim title to the property later, and elderly Naomi was certainly unlikely to produce any.”179 He would harvest the produce of this new land over the years and add to his children’s inheritance. Apparently the year of Jubilee was not an issue, or at least not perceived by him as a threat to his keeping the land. As the nearest male relative he probable believed that he would keep the land, regardless of Naomi’s possible claim. However, if Naomi died before the Jubilee year then as the nearest male relative he would definitely keep possession of the land. Note that in stating “I will redeem it,” the kinsman is announcing his intent, not completing the transaction. To complete the transaction apparently required a declaration similar to that spoken by Boaz in vvv. 9-10, and ratification by the elders, with the people as witnesses, verse eleven.

5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance.” 6 And the close relative said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it.” Boaz has now taken a definitive step to fulfill his promise to Ruth, 3:13. Verse five is the crux of the matter, both for Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz, as well as the reader. Will the nearer kinsman agree to marry Ruth, or will she and Boaz know true happiness? We just know they will find happiness, and the next verse confirms our hopes. The townspeople clearly accept that the land is within Naomi’s authority to sell. As noted above, for the widow to have the authority to sell her dead husband’s land seems out of place from what we know of ancient culture. Numbers 27:1-11 details the laws of inheritance, and addresses the case of Elimelech, who had no heir and apparently had no living brothers to inherit his land. Numbers 27:11 is the applicable verse, “'And if his father has 178 179

Hubbard, Ruth, 242. Hubbard, Ruth, 242.

53

Ruth Four

no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the kinsman closest him in his family, and he shall possess it.” We are left with an unanswerable conundrum. If the land was sold by Elimelech prior to leaving Bethlehem, then where is the owner in this transaction? If Naomi is “selling” her Jubilee rights to the nearer kinsman, then why would marriage to Ruth be part of the deal? An heir from Ruth under these circumstances would not be an heir to Naomi–for she is giving up her right to the land by selling her Jubilee rights–but an heir to the new husband. However, if Naomi is the one selling the land, then this is a redemption of the land, to ensure it remains in the clan, but more so it is a redemption of the right to inheritance through Ruth, the fertile Naomi-surrogate. Thus Ruth must be a part of the “package” to ensure a name for the dead is raised up on his land. Rather than rest on partial knowledge of ancient inheritance and redemption laws, it is better to accept the cultural interpretation of those laws as applied by the residents of Bethlehem in the time of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz. Naomi has the right to sell the land, and marriage to the widow of the owner180 can be part of the redemption “package.” This is the reason why “Mr. So-and-So” declines to redeem the land. This answers the question as to why neither man elected to redeem the land prior to this moment: Elimelech had not sold it when he left Bethlehem, and therefore it was still in the family. However, circumstances would eventually lead to the land being lost to the family. Upon her return Naomi could not physically nor financially afford to cultivate the land (beyond seed and labor, there may have been taxes due). Naomi was too old to produce an heir, and Ruth was unmarried, so there was no heir to retain the land for the family. When Naomi found a family relative whom she believed would marry Ruth, then three objectives could be accomplished at the same time. One, the land could be offered to that relative in order to keep the land within the family after Naomi died. Two, since cultural expectations linked marriage to redemption, Naomi could provide security for Ruth, and have an heir who would keep the land in her immediate family, in the names of Elimelech and Mahlon. Third, marriage into the family would immediately obligate the husband to care for Naomi, and a child by Ruth would provide for Naomi’s future security. Thus, when Boaz‘s curiosity developed into affection, the time was right to offer the land for sale to a relative, thus keeping the land in the family. Naomi now appears less as the helpless victim of circumstances and more as the shrewd investor in her family’s future.181 Boaz is very careful to use (what one assumes is) proper legal terminology as respects Naomi’s and Ruth’s position. Ruth is the “wife of the dead,” meaning that an heir for the family must come through her. Technically, that position falls to Naomi. However, Mahlon was the heir of Elimelech, and by identifying Ruth as the wife of the dead she becomes a surrogate for Naomi: Ruth alone can bear the family heir. Boaz insists that the kinsman-redeemer must perform the role of the dead husband’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5) to raise up a child to inherit the dead husband’s possessions. This interpretation and application of the Law seems agreeable to everyone involved, even though, as far as we can tell, neither man was a brother to Elimelech. The “name of the dead,” means more than just naming the offspring of Ruth after the Elimelech family name. “Rather he [Boaz] used the name [Hebrew sem] in its dynamic sense as a designation for the memory of a person’s deeds and achievements, one’s reputation and honor, as well as a

180

Since Mahlon died after Elimelech Mahlon is the owner. There is the possibility that there were meetings between Boaz and Naomi, which are not recorded, in which details concerning redemption of the land were discussed, Morris, Ruth, 300. 181

54

Ruth Four

metonymic expression for one’s descendants, who give one a sort of posthumous existence.”182 There was more to this marriage than having and raising the child. Ruth’s child would be educated as to his family history, and made to know that he was as much the child of Ruth and Mahlon as he was the child of Ruth and Boaz. If I may be devotional for a moment, is this not the way with a Christian? Who we are born as is not who we are in our redemption. The believer’s spiritual parentage and heritage exceeds his or her physical descent. God would have his people grow in the knowledge of himself, of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, and learn of him as to who we are in Christ, our heritage, and our inheritance. The Hebrew text reads, “also Ruth the Moabitess, wife of the deceased, you thereby purchase.” The word translated “purchase,” qnh, was used when money exchanged hands (the normal meaning of purchase) and “when discussing marriage in conjunction with other actual purchases. Therefore, ‘purchase’ here meant broadly ‘to marry as part of a legally valid transaction.’ Hence, this is technically not an example of a ‘bride purchase.’”183 Boaz probably identified Ruth as a “Moabitess” for legal purposes only. There is no hint of racial prejudice in the transaction. “All the people of my town know that you are a virtuous woman,” 3:11.

I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance Upon finding out that Ruth comes with the land, the nearer kinsman declines. Why redeeming Ruth with the land will ruin his own inheritance is the big question. That Ruth was a Moabite was probably not the reason, for marriage to a Moabite would not ruin his inheritance, the children would be sanctified by the marriage (they would be Israelites) and Ruth herself had converted to Judaism, removing the stain of her pagan past.184 Besides, none of the townspeople seem to object to a marriage for Ruth–the same objection would have applied to Boaz–and one assumes the narrator knew his readers would object if her national origin was an issue. The best explanation comes down to money. In buying the field the redeemer must pay up front, to the owner, an amount equal to the value of the land’s produce from that year up to the year of the Jubilee (which came every 50 years). This could be a substantial investment. If the land was to remain in his possession the investment was wise. If this brother could have bought the field without an obligation toward Ruth, then the land would have become his permanent property, to be passed along to his heirs. However, if the brother also married Ruth, then his firstborn son would not be his heir, but would be Elimelech’s heir, and Mahlon’s heir, for through Mahlon Ruth was part owner of the property. The child would have been part of the family of Elimelech (see 4:14-16), and when the child became an adult, the land which the kinsman had redeemed would revert to the now adult child. He would lose all title to the land and his investment would have brought him no lasting return.185 His property would be reduced, devaluing the remainder.186 Additionally, an heir from Ruth may have had a claim upon the kinsman’s original land holdings, reducing the inheritance to be passed along to his own children. The same also applied to Boaz, but he was willing to make this sacrifice for the love of Ruth, and to do that which was right according to the Law of God. Let us take a lesson from Boaz. Godliness counts the cost in the light of righteousness. Boaz 182 183 184 185 186

Block, Judges, Ruth, 714. Hubbard, Ruth, 244. For additional information concerning the prohibition against Moabites see appendix 1. For additional information concerning redemption and levirate marriage see appendix 2. Keil and Delitzsch, Ruth, 490.

55

Ruth Four

did not consider purchase of this property as a loss. He had a responsibility to do right. When God gave him the opportunity to fulfill that responsibility he did not hesitate. The only reason he had hesitated in the past was because he did not believe Ruth would want to marry an older man. We can also learn from Ruth. Her future was hanging in the balance. One would have thought she would be present at the proceedings, but I believe she followed Naomi’s counsel (3:18) and remained at home. She had done her part, and now was the time to “sit still.” I can speculate that if she had been present, being the beautiful woman I suspect her to have been, her attractiveness might have tipped the scales the other way. By being obedient to the authority God had placed over her, i.e., Naomi, she won the day. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Sometimes the right thing is to wait. Naomi waited for an opportunity to redeem her land. Boaz waited for Ruth to show interest in him as a potential husband. Ruth waited for Boaz to act his part as her kinsman redeemer. They all waited upon the Lord to carry the day and bless them. Because they did what was right, God was pleased to bless. They did not hinder God’s blessing because they consistently did what was right in his eyes.

7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was a confirmation in Israel. 8 Therefore the close relative said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself.” So he took off his sandal. The Narrator steps in to explain a custom that had apparently fallen into disuse at the time the Narrator wrote out the story of Ruth and Boaz.187 The custom described may have derived from Deuteronomy 25:5-10, which concerned marriage of the dead brother’s widow to raise up a child for the dead man’s inheritance. While Deuteronomy 25 calls for the widow to repudiate the man who repudiates her, by the time of Ruth the custom seems to have deviated from the law relating to marriage of the widow, into a custom by which “redeeming and exchanging” were legally ratified. According to Hubbard,188 the word translated redemption means “right of redemption,” and the word translated “exchange” is a term for commercial transactions, such as, in this instance, a real estate transaction. Together the two terms probably formed a merism189 indicating all forms of transactions. The man removed his sandal and gave it to Boaz as a sign that he has passed the duty of the kinsman redeemer, the right of redemption, to Boaz. It is noteworthy that no shame was attached to this transaction (as is required in Deuteronomy 25), and Ruth was not required to spit in his face. Why remove the sandal to confirm the transaction? One explanation is a parallel with the practices of other ancient cultures. The shoe may represent ownership because by it the owner treads on his property. “According to the Nuzi texts, for example, to validate a transfer of real estate the old owner would lift up his foot from the property and place the new owner’s foot on it. In the Old Testament, to ‘set foot’ on the land was associated with ownership of it (Deut 1:36; 11:24; Josh 1:3; 14:9). The sandal transfer in Ruth 4:7 may be a symbolic offspring of such ancient customs.”190 On the other hand, the culture had made a definite connection between redemption of the land and marrying the widow to raise up an heir to inherit the land. It is

187

Possibly because, with the advent of king and centralized government, the processes for redeeming and exchanging had become formalized through legislation., which included written documentation. 188 Hubbard, Ruth, 249. 189 A merism is a figure of speech in which mention of the first and last things indicates all things in between. Example, to say “I searched high and low” indicates I searched everywhere. 190 Hubbard, Ruth, 251.

56

Ruth Four

reasonable to assume the sandal custom relating to marriage of the widow had also become associated with redemption of the land.

9 And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. 10 “Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.” Boaz now makes his legal claim to the property of ELimelech. The elders are the ten men of v. 2, chosen to be “jurists” of the village for this transaction. “All the people” indicates a crowd had assembled at the open area of the gates, watching the proceedings out of normal curiosity (were Naomi and Ruth at the far edges of that crowd?). Both elders and the crowd are necessary as those who will verbally notarize the transaction, and maintain the memory of the event.191 Boaz’s formula, “You are witnesses,” echoes that used by Joshua as he admonished the people to serve the Lord only (Joshua 24:22). I Samuel 12:5 provides another near contemporary example. Undoubtably this was legal language recognized by all present. Boaz carefully lists all that he had redeemed, to establish in exact language his ownership. The inclusion of Chilion and Mahlon is unexpected.192 They were probably included for two reasons. One, both men may have owned some sort of property (land, houses, movable property) and Boaz wanted to ensure he had redeemed all that belonged to the family of Elimelech (as an inheritance for the coming child). Second, Mahlon is mentioned specifically because Boaz and Ruth would produce an heir who would inherit all that was Elimelech’s, through Ruth the fertile Naomi surrogate, and all that was Mahlon’s, through his widow Ruth. The formula “from the hand of Naomi” reveals Naomi is truly the owner of the land.193

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife Again, the mention of Ruth’s national origin is legal not racial. At a time when there were no surnames (surnames began with the Romans), she was probably known by the people as “Ruth the Moabite” to distinguish her from other women in Bethlehem named Ruth. Soon she would be known as Ruth the wife of Boaz. Here is the moment when Ruth is officially welcomed to the nation Israel, as an Israelite, by the people of that nation (the wedding is 4:13). The identification of Ruth as the widow of Mahlon–up to now we did not know which son she had married–is a notification that Boaz intends to fulfill Deuteronomy 25 concerning Mahlon’s inheritance. Finally, Boaz fulfills his promise of marriage to Ruth, 3:13 by announcing their engagement.

to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance 191

The removal of the shoe and the verbal exchange between Boaz, the elders, and all the people implies there was no written record of the events. Thus, the more who could remember and attest to the legality of the proceedings, the better. 192 Many note Chilion and Mahlon’s names are reversed from 1:2, 5. The most probably reason Mahlon is mentioned last in v. 9 is that he alone will be mentioned in v. 10; thus the hearing audience has his name in immediate memory, a speakers device to help the audience follow the context of the speech. 193 Perhaps Elimelech had willed the land to Naomi, or perhaps she had rights as the property manager (to use a modern term).

57

Ruth Four

Beyond the love Ruth and Boaz have for one another, this is the crux of the matter culturally, socially, and legally. God intended a perpetual inheritance of the land to his people, and that included the descendants of those who were deceased. If the dead were to die without an heir, then through the levirate marriage God ensured “that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.” What is in view socially and culturally is not that the dead continue to inhabit the land through their descendants, but the perpetuation of each family in Israel as the mark that the inheritance of God is perpetual. Spiritually the Holy Spirit is teaching, through this law, and through examples such as the book of Ruth that, in the words of Peter, the believer has “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven.” Like the tribe of Levi, Numbers 18:20, the Lord is the Christian’s inheritance, an inheritance that cannot be lost, because the Lord ensures “our name may not be cut off.” The name of the dead will not be cut off “off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate.” The family of Elimelech and Mahlon will continue through the relationships the extended family will have through the marriage of Boaz and Ruth. “Thus the heir owning the property would maintain the dead’s existence in the larger family. Second, the assembly of this town (lit. ‘from the gate of this place’) was the local legal authority, the body of elders, which guarded the dead’s legal rights and of which Elimelech himself might have once been a member. Hence, his heir (by name, ‘such and such, son of Elimelech’) would look after the deceased’s legal rights, especially his ‘inheritance’ within the community.”194

You are witnesses this day Ending his description of the property to be redeemed (which included marriage to Ruth), Boaz calls for the elders and all the people to notarize his purchase. Just as when a document is notarized today, these witnesses could be called upon in the future to verify the transaction, should there be a future challenge to its authenticity and scope. The words “this day” served the same function as the notary’s date stamp does in our day: the transaction dates as final from “this day” forward. Note that Naomi, 3:18, was correct in her assessment of Boaz’s character.

11 And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, “We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12 “May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman.” Simply put, the people agreed with and ratified the transaction, becoming living notary documents. At this moment Boaz became the owner of the property in question; the official act of marriage to Ruth will follow shortly. The elders, of course, certified the transaction as legal, and the people gave their popular assent. All present are the living memory and certification that everything was done in accordance with the law and custom.

The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah Probably a standard blessing. The house of Israel was begun by these two wives of Jacob (aka 194

Hubbard, Ruth, 257.

58

Ruth Four

Israel, Genesis 32:28), who, along with their handmaids Zilpah and Bilhah, gave birth to the twelve patriarchs of the nation. From this small beginning the man Israel had grown to the nation Israel. The blessing was meant as a polite prayer for the newly wed couple to be fruitful and build their house, find the security of family within their times, and a perpetuation of their family name for all time. Then the people asked the blessing that Boaz–again probably a standard blessing–gain prosperity and fame among his people; a prayer that came true through the book of Ruth.

May your house be like the house of Perez The allocation of Bethlehem to a tribe in Judah is not specifically stated in the book of Joshua. Jerusalem is given to Benjamin, Joshua 18:28, where it is called Jebus, and Bethlehem was about eight miles south of Jerusalem. The book of Ruth, 1:1, describes “a certain man of Bethlehem, Judah.” Bethlehem was apparently on the border between the territories of Benjamin and Judah and belonged to Judah. The house of Perez was part of the house of Judah. Perez was the offspring of Judah (Genesis 38), and Hezron, the son of Perez, was the progenitor of Boaz (1 Chronicles 2:5, 9-12). This was a prayer for the continuation of the family line, not through natural fertility, but through the work of the Lord in their lives. Since this blessing is addressed to Boaz, the people anticipated the coming child would be the heir of Boaz, as well as the heir of Elimelech and Mahlon. Nothing is known about the Boaz family, although it is probably a safe assumption that he was childless, a bachelor or a widower. The focus is on the fame and prosperity Boaz will gain gained through an heir or heirs. The Narrator and readers know king David comes out of this blessed line. The reference to Tamar may be because Tamar was also a foreigner. Being outside the family of Israel did not prevent God from blessing Perez and Tamar with children. There may be a larger message to the Narrator’s readers, to wit, God is not limited in his works to the people of Israel. The nation was to isolate itself from idolatry, but at the same time they were to welcome foreigners who expressed faith in YHWH. More than that, the nation as a whole had an evangelistic mission to show the blessing of serving the one true God. If they had kept to that mission there would have been more Ruths in the fold. As it is, Ruth stands as a testimony to the ability of the grace of God to bring sinners to a saving faith in himself. In God’s kingdom everyone counts, an offer of salvation through faith is extended to anyone who will respond. Two questions now remain: “first, would Naomi finally have an heir? Second, would Boaz and Ruth in fact found some great dynasty?”195

13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a close relative; and may his name be famous in Israel! So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife Finally! the marriage of Ruth and Boaz. One cannot be certain, but it would seem that Naomi remained in her house, because she had money from the redemption of the land. The words of the village women to Naomi (a counterpoint to 2:19-21) and the narrator’s comment in verse 16 seem to bear out this assumption. Note that, as asked, the Lord gave Ruth conception. This is one of the few times the Lord is mentioned, and his appearance here to answer prayers and supply needs 195

Hubbard, Ruth, 262.

59

Ruth Four

implies his continuing presence and action throughout the Naomi/Ruth story. In fact, one might say that from the beginning this has been more the story of Naomi than of Ruth. Ruth was one of the means by which the Lord brought empty and bitter Naomi to a place of fullness and joy. Her faith, as much or more than Ruth’s, is on display throughout the book.

Then the women said to Naomi One assumes these are elder women who have an unofficial position among the village female community that is comparable, within that sorority, to the male village elders. Naomi is of an age to be part of this group. They seem to have brought the child to Naomi’s house, although this is not certain. Many modern commentators assume the child is brought to Naomi’s house for a ceremony, or a celebration. While this is plausible, there is another possibility.196 Due to the significance of this birth Naomi and the women were present at the birth. There would be a midwife to assist Ruth, but the other women and Naomi were there to celebrate the birth and recognize the child’s dual inheritance. After Ruth (and possible Boaz) had held Obed, identifying him as their child, he was then presented to Naomi, as the child’s grandmother and “foster-mother” (see below). To the villagers Obed was as much the child of Naomi as of Ruth. The significance of the birth encouraged, perhaps demanded, their presence at the birth. The birth removed the stigma both women had shared as being childless. Obed was the heir of Naomi and Elimelech, Ruth and Mahlon, and Ruth and Boaz. However, the focus is on Naomi. Obed replaced Naomi’s bitterness (1:20) with joy, and her emptiness (1:21) with fullness. The exclamations of the women (cf., 1:19) should be seen in that context. They praise the Lord for Obed’s birth, then pray for blessings to fall upon Naomi through Obed. All along this has been the story of Naomi: her struggle with faith and circumstances, her emptiness, her bitterness, her childlessness. Ruth has done her part by being the surrogate in childbearing, but now that the child is born it is time to complete Naomi’s story.

Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a close relative The women recognize that Obed is not merely a product of human sexuality, but a gift from the Lord. He has provided the necessary heir, a son who will be fully able to provide for his natural and adoptive mother. The women refer not just to the birth, but to the events which the Lord used to bring about the conditions for his birth. The words “close relative” are the Hebrew go el, the “kinsman-redeemer.” The thought is not that Obed will redeem all that belongs to Naomi, for as the heir of Elimelech and Mahlon her possessions are his. Rather, Obed will “redeem” her from a life of poverty and emptiness, and will provide for her in her old age and death. This was one of the reasons to have children. In these ancient times the welfare system which cared for the very aged was the extended family. Ruth, Boaz and now Obed will care for Naomi in her old age, both personally and through the preservation of the inheritance. Some have suggested that Boaz may have been older than Naomi, so that by the time Obed reached maturity Boaz would be dead and Obed the provider for Naomi and Ruth. Such may not have been the case, but it is possible.

may his name be famous in Israel 196

Suggested to me by a remark of Matthew Henry in his commentary, “the good women who were at the labour when this child was born congratulated Naomi.”

60

Ruth Four

Compare 4:11. The prosperity and fame the women asked for Boaz is transferred to his son. Children are an heritage from the Lord, and a legacy to their descendants. The family line was assured to the next generation, and a blessing from YHWH is asked that Obed may bring fame to the family and father a new generation to perpetuate the family. This wish for future prosperity was common but took on extra meaning due to Naomi’s condition.

15 “And may he be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him.” 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her bosom, and became a nurse to him. 17 Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, “There is a son born to Naomi.” And they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. And may he be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age The prayer “may he be to you [Naomi] a restorer of life” is probably, in viewing the story as a work of literature, included by the Narrator as a counterpoint to 1:20, 21. Naomi was barren and empty but now she has an heir and is full. However, there is also the thought of the continuation of the family line, thus Obed is the next generation whose life will assure succeeding generations in the family of Elimelech. Remember, Naomi was too old to have children (1:11, 12), but through her “son” Obed she could provide heirs for the family. As a “nourisher of your old age” Obed would be Naomi’s security when she was no longer able to care for herself. Care of the elderly was a serious family responsibility in the ancient days because hospitals and other care facilities were nonexistent. These things came about as a result of Christianity. “‘Old Age’ is literally ‘gray hairs.’ The promise, then, was that Naomi, stalked by cruel famine in earlier years, would have sustaining daily bread from the child in her later years.”197

for your daughter-in-law The use of this phrase reminds us that Ruth, though unseen, is nevertheless present. If, as has proposed, the women were in Ruth’s house to be present at the birth, then this is praise directed as much to Ruth as to Naomi. Such praise is not out of place, as Ruth has remained steadfastly true to her oath (1:16, 17) even when blessed with husband and children. As “better than seven sons,” Ruth is given a very high accolade indeed. Hannah (1 Samuel 2:5) notes that “even the barren has seven sons,” and Jeremiah (15:9) notes, albeit in a negative manner, the blessedness of having seven sons. To have seven sons was to be fully blessed by the Lord. Ruth–in her love, in her faithfulness–was a greater blessing to Naomi than seven sons would have been: remarkable considering the earning power, the security into old age, and the assured continuance of the family that seven sons would have brought to Naomi. Undoubtedly this is a proverbial phrase for great blessing, indicating a positive reflection on Ruth’s character, and a positive appraisal of her good work in sticking close to Naomi and bearing an heir.

Then Naomi took the child. . . and became a nurse to him There are two possibilities in this act. One is that Naomi took Obed after he was weaned and 197

Hubbard, Ruth, 272.

61

Ruth Four

cared for him, “laying him in her bosom,” as his mother, or care-taker as a grandmother, or adoptive mother. However, the context implies Naomi took the child into her arms as the women were pronouncing their blessings, presumably after Ruth and Boaz had held him. She could not have actually fed him breast milk. Lactation is stimulated by birth and will cease unless continued by regularly suckling. Naomi is, if I understand 1:10, 11, in menopause; at the least she had not lactated for over 20 to 30 years. One cannot take the words “became a nurse to him” in their most literal sense. The most likely intent of cradling the newborn child in her arms was to establish a relationship between herself and Obed. What that relationship was is suggested by the Hebrew word translated nurse. “In the Old Testament omenet apparently denotes one who cares for dependent children either on behalf of or in the absence of natural parents”198 (e.g., see 2 Samuel 4:4; 2 Kings 10: 1, 5; Esther 2:7). Hubbard states199 the word implies Naomi’s assumption of semiparental responsibilities for the child’s upbringing (though not in a legal sense), and the term ‘foster-mother’ is his descriptive for her relationship to Obed. The relationship between Obed and Naomi had to be more than that of grandmother and grandchild. Obed was destined to be Elimelech’s heir and Naomi’s guardian (in her old age). As Elimelech’s heir the relationship between Naomi and Obed could almost be described as like that between mother and son. Without doubt as Obed matured his ancestry and future would be carefully and repeatedly explained, his responsibilities and duty carefully inculcated into his psyche. Naomi must be a part of that indoctrination to be its beneficiary. The term foster mother is both an adequate and accurate description of that relationship.

Also the neighbor women gave him a name Why the women would name him is a mystery, as this would be against all that is known concerning the culture (although, see Luke 1:59, 61). A better suggestion is that the women suggested the name Obed as indicative of his future. The name Obed means a servant (literally, ‘one who works/serves’200) and probably reflects his life’s work as the go el of Naomi. The name was appropriate and therefore adopted by Ruth and Boaz. This does not answer the question as to why the Narrator states the women named him, but as this is the only instance in the Bible of someone other than the parents naming a child no one can provide a definitive answer.

He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. Here is the moment the reader has been awaiting: why these people were significant. The story was wonderful and wonderfully told, but why was it told? The most likely reason is the connection between Ruth and David. Why this was important was lost as the politics of the time faded away. One might speculate endlessly, but it really does not matter. The fact remains Ruth and Naomi are important persons in the history of Israel because of their connection to David. That connection may be seen as the fulfillment of the blessings given in 4:11, 14. Another connection to be made is that of Jehovah’s influence in the destiny of Israel. David was specially anointed to be king over Israel (1 Samuel 16:13). There is a larger context in which the reader can view David’s appointment as king to have been divinely intended from the days of 198 199 200

Hubbard, Ruth, 274, 275. Hubbard, Ruth, 274, 275. Hubbard, Ruth, 276ff.

62

Ruth Four

Naomi, Ruth and Obed. The Lord interacted with the life of a stranger, Ruth the Moabite, and a widow, Naomi, and the godly Boaz, to bring about the line of king David. From one good as dead, Naomi, and from one dead to Israel, Ruth the Maobitess, God brought into existence Israel’s redeemer, king David, who rescued the nation from the Philistines, disunity, idolatry, and obscurity. From a Christian point of view the Lord acted to ensure the birth of David’s greater son, Jesus the Messiah. Perhaps one can say that, as an apology for David’s reign, the book of Ruth shows his kingship was due to divine appointment, versus personal cleverness and human politics.201 The same may be said for David’s descendant, Jesus. The connection between David and Ruth says something about the Lord’s intentions concerning the Gentiles, even at this early date. Ruth was prohibited by the Mosaic Law from entering the congregation of Israel. Yet through God’s grace she was saved from paganism. As an ancestor of Jesus God shows, through her inclusion, that salvation is to the Gentiles through the Jews. No one is so separated from God that his grace cannot bring them into a saving relationship with himself. That the Jews missed, or ignored, the lesson is sad.

18 19 20 21 22

Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.

The Narrator ends the book of Ruth with the genealogy of David, indicating why this family story was committed to writing. The genealogy is not necessarily complete, i.e., not every relationship may be shown between Boaz and David. For example, not every person is shown between Salmon and Boaz. The ones who are given are (probably) the more prominent members of the family. Note the list is of ten men, a typical genealogy, where the number ten is seen as completeness of order. The book of Ruth also furnishes a clearly developed illustration of redemption in Jesus. He is the near kinsman who redeems sinners from their desperate condition in the world. In Him the believer has not only deliverance, but an inheritance and a relationship. In this typology Ruth plays the part of the sinner, brought to the Lord by Naomi, a type of the Holy Spirit. Boaz plays the part of the Lord, sacrificing his own benefit to effect the redemption of Ruth. The nearer kinsman who refused to redeem Ruth typifies the Law of Moses, as one who leaves the sinner in his sin. Through the Law there is no redemption, but through our kinsman, Christ, we find salvation, kinship, and inheritance.

201 Some believe the book is an apology for Solomon, who was born of a foreign woman, Bathsheba (assumed to be a foreigner because her husband was an Hittite). If this is true, then the fact an ancestor of the great king David was a foreigner is an apology for Solomon as well as David. However, there is Scripture proof Bathsheba was a foreigner.

63

APPENDIX ONE PROHIBITION AGAINST A MOABITE ENTERING INTO THE CONGREGATION OF THE LORD DEUTERONOMY 23:4 Obviously Ruth became part of the congregation of Israel. Moreover, as one of David’s ancestors, she is in the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ. How does this reconcile with the prohibition in Deuteronomy? The verses in question are Deuteronomy 23:3-6: • “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the congregation of the LORD forever, “because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. “Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. “You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.” In general, many commentators believe the prohibition “shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” indicates participation in the government of the Israelite community, not exclusion from the worship and community of Israel. Matthew Poole, commenting on v. 1, wrote, “which phrase cannot be understood so that they might not come into the church, or holy assemblies, to worship God, to pray, to hear, etc., because proselytes of any nation, being admitted to common church privileges, no less than the Jews, it were absurd to think that any of the Israelites, for such a natural or involuntary defect, should be shut out from all God’s ordinances.”202 This, of course, makes perfect sense. God does not exclude a person from salvation on any basis other than unbelief. Every member of any nation was free to convert to Judaism and worship YHWH. As concerns the specific prohibition against the Moabites, Poole comments, “This may be understood either, 1. Of the males only, or the children of such fathers, as interpreters commonly take it. Or rather, 2. Of females also, or of all that were born either of such fathers or mothers, as may be gathered from Ezra 10; Nehemiah 13, where the children of strange wives were separated from Israel no less than the children of strange fathers.”203 More recent commentators believe the Moabite prohibition was concerned exclusively with males. Leon Morris cites Slotki that v. 4 is a “silent protest against intermarriage” and that this was the unanimous view of Jewish commentators. Slotki affirms that marriage with a Moabite woman was not forbidden, “and that the prohibition was concerned exclusively with males.”204 Jamieson, Fausset & Brown205 echo this opinion, as do Keil and Delitzsch.206 There are, therefore, two main solutions to the problem of Ruth the Moabite woman entering into the nation of Israel. The first is that the prohibition concerned men only. This does not seem satisfactory to me. One of the reasons for the prohibition was to prevent marriages to men and women who were idolaters. Pagan worshipers practiced the mutilation of men, turning them into 202 203 204 205 206

Poole, Commentary, I: 380. Poole, Commentary, I: 380. Morris, Ruth, 250. Jamieson, et al, 158. Keil and Delitzsch, Ruth, 472.

64

Appendix One

eunuchs; the pagan practice of religious prostitution produced illegitimate children. Moreover, the specific prohibition against the Moabites and Ammonites is very clear. They were not to enter “for ever.” The phrase “even to the tenth generation” is added to indicate the prohibition is indeed forever, meaning no matter how many generations pass, they shall not enter–which is how Nehemiah interprets the verse, Nehemiah 13:1-3: the definite number is used to represent the indefinite period of time.207 To this Poole agrees, the Moabites and Ammonites were not to enter “forever.”208 A more satisfactory solution involves the grace of God. God created the Law for Israel, and they might not change it to suit themselves. However, “God when he pleased might exempt any particular person of them from this curse,”209 meaning God was not bound by his Law with which he bound the Israelites. With this thought in mind, we might also remember that Ruth converted from paganism to the true worship of YHWH. God, as being the author of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), never rejects faith in himself. Though the Moabites in general were prohibited from entering into the congregation of Israel, yet because of her faith Ruth received the salvation of the Lord and was brought into the congregation of Israel and the lineage of Jesus. God’s grace is not overcome by such little things as race or nationality. Faith in him saves from sin.

207 208 209

Jamieson, et al, 158. Poole, Commentary, I: 380. Poole, Commentary, I: 380.

65

APPENDIX TWO REDEMPTION OF THE LAND & LEVIRATE MARRIAGE To understand the book of Ruth one must understand the biblical laws of levirate marriage and the redemption of land. First, the redemption of land. Some of the following information came from an article in the magazine Israel My Glory, Feb/March 1993 issue, Vol 51, No. 1, pages 15-17, published by the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry Inc. Leviticus 25:23-34 contains the essential information on this law, although for the purposes of the book of Ruth verses 23-28 contain the appropriate information. The basic rule concerning the land of Israel was that it belonged solely to the Lord. He was the ultimate owner and he alone had the power and the right to rule over and dispense the land as suited his sovereign purposes. God established a tenant possession in the land to each family in Israel. That is, the land was a possession to Israel forever, and each family had a part of the land, a permanent inheritance from the Lord. Even the Levites, whose inheritance was the Lord, had a possession in the land: their cities, their individual houses, and the common land around their cities. Because the Lord was the owner and the Israelites merely the tenants, families were forbidden to permanently sell their portion of the land to someone outside the family. God took great care that the land should remain within the family of the original owners. The land was divided among the tribes and the major families of each tribe by Moses and confirmed by Joshua. You can read this for yourself in the book of Joshua. The tribal and family elders further divided the land among the smaller families. In the book of Ruth, Bethlehem is stated as belonging to Judah. The family of Elimelech and Boaz owned certain lots of land in and around Bethlehem. Sometimes an Israelite had to sell his land. Financial reverses often brought about land sales. Of course, this meant the land could pass out of the hands of the owning family. God’s plan was for the land to permanently remain the possession of the original family. In the Law, at Leviticus 25, God made provisions for the return of the land to its original owner should the land be sold. The first of these was the Jubilee Year. The Year of the Jubilee occurred every 50 years. God counted the years in terms of Sabbath cycles of seven years each. At the end of every seventh seven, that is, in the 50th year, there was a Jubilee. As related to the land, all sales were cancelled and the land was returned to the original owner, his heir, or his extended family (if he or the heir had died). However, the original owner-heir-family need not wait until the year of the Jubilee to reclaim the land. He could redeem the land. Again, Leviticus 25, the Law made a provision that the one who had sold the land could buy the land back from the new owner. The seller could not deny the redemption of the land. The land was bought back for its original selling price, plus an additional amount. The additional amount added up to the value of the fruit of the land, counted in years from the year the land was redeemed up to the year of the next Jubilee. Thus, if I sold a piece of land for $10,000.00 in year 10 of the Jubilee cycle, and redeemed it in year 20, then I would redeem it for $10,000.00 plus the value of the land’s produce for the next 30 years, i.e., to the next Jubilee year. This provision ensured there would be no frivolous sales, and protected the investor from the loss of all his capital. This was the second method to return the land to the original family. Method three was similar to method two. The original owner of the land, having now sold the land, might remain too poor to buy back his possession. In cases like these the “kinsman-redeemer” could redeem the land for himself and thus return the land to the family. The original owner lost title to the land in favor of the kinsman who redeemed it, but the land remained in the family. The kinsman-redeemer had to be a member of the family which owned the land. This need not be a 66

Appendix Two

direct family member, i.e., related through the same mother and father. Families were quite extended in those days, and as long as the redeemer could show a family relationship, for example son, brother, nephew, cousin, uncle, grandfather, etc., he could purchase the land under the same condition as provided in method two. If God’s law was followed, then the land remained in the same tribes and families as when Joshua assigned the land to the tribes. In God’s view, an Israelite never lost his inheritance in the land. This has implications throughout the Bible. For example, Daniel 12:13 is a promise to Daniel that, no matter what the outward circumstances of his life, and no matter what shall intervene (as relates to the prophetic word he had received), he, Daniel, would still receive his inheritance in the land. He would “arise to [his] inheritance at the end of the days.” God prophetic program for Israel’s future is secure. Daniel will inherit his portion of the land. This also has implications for New Testament believer’s inheritance. God’s laws concerning inheritance will not be broken by God. Everyone will receive his or her inheritance: 1 Peter 1:4. Title to the land passed from male heir to male heir. There was no ownership vested in the women. That is why Naomi needed a male kinsman-redeemer. Technically Naomi did not have the right to sell the land (Ruth 4:3). The land belonging to Elimelech should have reverted to the nearest kinsman, Elimelech failing of a living male heir. Possibly the local culture left ownership vested in the original owner until the widow died. While God’s law made no provision for this, it also wasn’t a violation of the law. The intent of the law was accomplished in that the title to the land was vested in the original owning family, and could be redeemed by a member of that family if sold. As relates to Ruth and Naomi, Boaz was a kinsman, he was wealthy enough to be able to redeem the land, and he was willing to it. The other kinsman was also capable, but refused to redeem the land because of the relationship it would have required with Ruth. This leads to the second subject, the levirate marriage. The levirate marriage (so called because the husband’s brother was the levir, Latin for brotherin-law) is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, although it has more ancient, biblical origins. The intent of the law was to provide an heir to inherit the land. If there were no heir, the land would not continue to pass through time as the family possession. God was concerned that each family have an heir, that no family die out in Israel. To accomplish this he set up a law concerning marriage. This is a little easier to understand if we give everyone a name. Should Jane’s husband Fred die childless, Bill, the man’s brother, would take Jane as his wife, impregnate Jane, and raise Jane’s child Joe as his brother Fred’s heir. In other words, Joe would be Bill’s child biologically, but Fred’s child legally. Legally Joe would be the child of Fred and Jane, while biologically the child of Bill and Jane. The child Joe would inherit Fred’s property and possessions when he came of age. The land would never pass out of the original owning family, because Joe was raised with Fred’s name. If Bill had also redeemed Fred’s land, Bill lost that possession to Joe when Joe became old enough to inherit. Should Bill refuse to marry Jane after Fred had died childless, God provided a ceremony which would bring great shame to Bill’s house. There was a lot of incentive to do this God’s way, although God did make an allowance for Bill to refuse to take Jane after Fred’s death. Please read Deuteronomy 25:5-10. As relates to Ruth and Naomi, the villagers considered that a relative near enough to redeem the land was also near enough to be an acceptable substitute to marry Ruth (because Elimelech did not have a living brother). The kinsman nearer than Boaz refused to redeem the land because he also had to marry Ruth and raise up a child to inherit the land he was about to redeem. This means he would have lost the land, eventually, to the child to be born between himself and Ruth. 67

Appendix Two

As discussed in the commentary, this was a loss he was unwilling to bear, not merely economically, but also because a child with Ruth would be his heir also, and could affect the distribution of the land to his other children. Because this man refused, Ruth was able to marry Boaz.

68

Commentaries and Reference Books Consulted Baxter, J. Sidlow, Explore the Book, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academie Books, 1966 Block, Daniel I., Judges, Ruth, The New American Commentary, Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999 Bromiley, G. W., ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979 Bullinger, E. W., Number in Scripture, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1967 Coates, C. A., An Outline of the Books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth, London: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, 1929 Cook, F. C., ed.,The Book of Ruth, Barnes Notes, London: John Murray, 1879; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, n. d. Dennet, J., Thoughts on the Book of Ruth, Choteau, MT: Old Paths Gospel Press, n. d. Excel, Joseph S., Ruth, The Biblical Illustrator, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, n.d Gill, John, Commentary on Ruth, The Baptist Standard Bearer, The Collected Writings of John Gill, CD-ROM Edition, Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000 Harris, R. Laird, Archer, Gleason L. Jr., Waltke, Bruce K., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981 Henry, Matthew, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Old Tappen, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, n. d. Hollingsworth, David, Biblical Chronology/Genealogy, unpublished manuscript, 2002. Hubbard, Robert L. Jr., The Book of Ruth, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988 Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, F., The Book of Ruth, Commentary on the Old Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996 Jackman, David, Judges, Ruth, Mastering the Old Testament, Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1991 Jamieson, Robert, Fausset, A. R., Brown David, Commentary, Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervon Publishing, 1961 Lockyer, Herbert, All the Women of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervon Books, 1988 Maclaren, Alexander, Expositions of Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids. MI: Baker Book House, 1977 McCartney, Clarence Edward, Great Women of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,1992 McClintock, John and Strong, James, ed. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, CD-Rom Edition, (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2000 Morris, Leon, Ruth, an Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1968 Morrison, James, The Book of Ruth, The Pulpit Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1978 Nelson’s Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts, Old and New Testaments, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993 Pink, A. W., Gleanings in Joshua, The AGES Digital Library Series, The Arthur Pink Collection, CDROM edition, (Rio, WI: Ages Software, 2000 Poole, Matthew, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Mclean, VA: McDonald Publishing, n. d. Reese, Edward, The Reese Chronological Bible, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1980 Ridout, Samuel, Gleanings From the Book of Ruth, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1900; reprint, Judges and Ruth, combined edition, 1958 Thomson, William, The Land and the Book, Hartford, CN: The S. S. Scranton Company, 1910 Walvoord, John F. and Zuck Roy B. , ed., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament , 69

Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1978 Whyte, Alexander, Bible Characters, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervon Publishing, 1952 Wight, Fred H., Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1953 Wigram, George V., The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980

70