book of ruth essay

A Summary and Analysis of the Book of Ruth

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

The Book of Ruth is one of the shorter books of the Bible, but the story it tells is one of the most movingly ‘human’ in all of the Old Testament. However, how the story of Ruth should be interpreted is not an easy question to answer. Let’s delve deeper into the Biblical Book of Ruth to discover a world of outsiders, love, law, and mysterious customs involving shoes.

Before we come to the analysis, though, it might be worth summarising the plot of the story of Ruth as it’s laid out in the Bible. The Book of Ruth is thought to have been written some time between 450 and 250 BC.

Book of Ruth: summary

A man named Elimelech, from Bethlehem-Judah, left his hometown when a famine struck. He and his wife Naomi, along with their two sons Mahlon and Chilion, left for Moab. Elimelech died, leaving Naomi with her two sons.

These two sons married Moabite women: Orpah and Ruth. Ten years passed, and Mahlon and Chilion both died. Naomi decided to return to Judah, hearing that the famine had passed, but she entreated her sisters-in-law to remain in their homeland of Moab. After all, this was their home, and why should they accompany her back to her homeland now their husbands were dead? They have a house in Moab and will be provided for.

Although both women initially pledged to stay with Naomi, when she urged them to leave her, Orpah agreed. But Ruth stayed by Naomi’s side and vowed to accompany her back to Judah.

Back in Judah, there was wealthy relative of Naomi’s dead husband, a man named Boaz. Ruth went into the field to gather corn for the harvest, where she caught the eye of Boaz.

Boaz promised to treat Ruth, an outsider in the land of Judah, as an equal, and welcomed her. Ruth was overcome by his kindness, and asked what she, a stranger, had done to deserve it. Boaz replied that he had heard how she left behind her own parents in Moab to accompany her mother-in-law into a strange land.

Ruth went home to her mother-in-law that evening, and told her what had happened. Naomi told Ruth that Boaz was a near-kinsman, and as such he will protect and provide for them. Ruth went to Boaz that night and knelt at his feet. She told him she was his handmaid and they were kin.

Boaz replied that there was a man who was an even closer kinsman to her than he was, and this other man had, essentially, first refusal on whether he wished to marry Ruth. However, if this other man said he didn’t want to marry Ruth, Boaz declared he would happily do so. And he gave her six measures of corn to take back to Naomi as pledge.

Boaz called a counsel of elders, including this other kinsman of Ruth’s, and explained that Naomi had her dead husband’s parcel of land to sell, but that if the kinsman wished to claim it, he must also agree to marry Ruth.

There followed a strange custom involving a shoe, whereby a man ‘plucked off his shoe’ and handed it to his neighbour if he wished to forgo his claim to something. This was a kind of ‘testimony in Israel’ in those days, we are told, a legal ritual which sealed the deal.

So this other man took off his shoe and gave it to Boaz, signalling that he relinquished all claim to Ruth or her dead father-in-law’s land. Marrying Ruth would damage his own inheritance from his father (presumably for marrying a Moabite foreigner) so he declined. Boaz announced that he would marry Ruth, and they promptly got married, and Ruth had a son.

This son, we are told, in turn had a son named Jesse, who himself had a son, named David.

Book of Ruth: analysis

Many books of the Old Testament seem to have been written to counter the narrow nationalism of other books of the Old Testament. So the message of the Book of Jonah – in which the title character’s disdain for the people of Nineveh receives a sharp moral rebuke from God – functions as a sort of riposte to the Book of Obadiah. And we can analyse the Book of Ruth as a response, or counter-response, to those other stories in the Bible which endorse a nationalistic understanding of Israel.

Whichever interpretation of Ruth we choose to follow, we should bear in mind the key fact of the story, which is that Ruth is a Moabite who leaves her family and her own people behind to begin a new life, as the devoted companion to her widowed mother-in-law Naomi, in the land of Judah.

The Dictionary of the Bible emphasises this aspect of the story, and suggests that Ruth’s loyalty to her adopted nation of Judah is important because Ruth is the ancestor of David, the great King of Israel. (Ruth is David’s great-grandmother.) So one ‘meaning’ for the Book of Ruth, and its significance for Judaism and Christianity, lies in its genealogical quality, in providing the story of David’s ancestry. If Ruth had never left Moab and followed Naomi to Judah, David would never have been born.

All of our lives hinge on such chance happenings or vagaries that occurred somewhere in our ancestral history, but for Jews and Christians the story of Ruth’s adoption of Judah as her new home, and her union with Boaz, possesses greater importance because her descendants would include King David of Israel.

Ruth is an idyllic romance, and one of only two books of the Bible named after women (the other one is Esther). But it would be wrong to offer a feminist interpretation of the story of Ruth which saw her as somehow bucking the patriarchal customs and laws of her time.

After all, the patriarchal laws binding women to men are still present her: Ruth may wish to marry Boaz, but he is intent on observing the law which gives Ruth’s closer kinsman first dibs on her, as it were. Both Ruth and Naomi are survivors in this patriarchal landscape, but they are nevertheless constrained by its laws and traditions.

We should view the Book of Ruth firmly as fiction: it’s a ‘short story’, essentially, some two millennia before the ‘short story’ came into existence as a recognised genre. But the details of the narrative are too neat to be strictly historical.

For instance, the names of Elimelech’s children, Mahlon and Chilion, literally mean ‘sickness’ and ‘wasting’ respectively; these strike us as unlikely names for a parent to give to their children, and given the fates of the two sons, their names seem far too pat. They chime symbolically, however, with the famine which drives Elimelech to leave Judah behind for Moab.

Continue to explore the Bible with our summary and analysis of the Book of Esther .

The Book of Ruth: Origin and Purpose

See Also: Reading Ruth in the Restoration Period (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016).

By E. Allen Jones III, PhD Associate Professor of Bible Corban University November 2017

If we were to inquire into the origin and purpose of the biblical book of Ruth, it may seem like a simple and straightforward question. As modern readers in highly literate communities, we are accustomed to asking “why” – why did an author write this book? To whom were they speaking and what were they trying to communicate? Modern authors follow established practices – they include their names with their publications. They identify the year in which they produced a work. They will even include prefaces and/or introductions that help orient readers to their thoughts. Understandably, we suppose such information should be equally as important to and equally accessible for the books that we find in the Bible. Sadly (or happily, depending on one’s interpretive sensibilities), such information is not generally on hand for biblical books. The biblical texts, at least those found in the Hebrew Bible (HB)/Old Testament (OT), are technically anonymous. Traditions do come to be associated with various figures (Neh 8:1; Mark 12:26), but biblical books do not include title pages that identify an author(s) or date of publication. Yet, despite the fact that such information is illusive when it comes to biblical texts, the intuition remains among laypeople and scholars alike that it is likely relevant to how we understand the HB/OT. So it is for the HB/OT broadly, and so it is for the book of Ruth. Fortunately for the reader of this short essay, we will restrict our investigation herein to an exploration of the various scholarly arguments on the origin and purpose of Ruth. Thus, certainty may evade us, but time travel back into the ancient world of Israel will not be necessary.

Framing the Problem [1]

When it comes to specifying either a possible publication range and/or articulating a purpose for Ruth, biblical scholars traverse all areas of the proverbial map. On the matter of dating, our oldest manuscripts for Ruth come from the 1st cent. B.C.E. (Campbell, 1975), but the story tells of events that are set in the Judges period (pre-1000 B.C.E.), which allows for a much earlier point of origin. Two clues from within the story – mention of (King) David and the “sandal ceremony” (Ruth 4:6-8) – suggest that our author was somewhat removed from the events of the story, but it is hard to say by how far. Thus, we have a window of some 800-900 years during which the story could appear, and scholars have made full use of the possibilities. Murray Gow (1992) represents one end of the spectrum, setting the book right near the beginning of the monarchic period. Erich Zenger (1992) holds down the other pole in the spectrum, claiming that Ruth comes from the Maccabean period (i.e. after the expulsion of the Greek occupiers in Israel and before Rome’s domination of Palestine). Considering the purpose of the book, again, scholars vary widely. Some refer to the story as an idyllische Novelle (Kaiser, 1969). Others hold that it is a political apology for David’s lineage (Gow, 1992), and still others see it as a subversive cultural commentary (Fewell and Gunn, 1990). Though Ruth has been with us for anywhere between 2,000-3,000 years, it is clear that space remains to discuss how we should view the book.

Framing the Solutions

Taking into account the difficulties outlined above, there are broadly two stances that scholars have taken regarding Ruth’s origin and purpose. On the one hand, some opt not to pursue a date of origin, which, in turn, means they may also pass over considering what the book’s original purpose was. This approach can stem from a post-modern reading strategy (Greenstein, 1999) or from an ecclesial commitment to the ongoing witness of Ruth (Lau, Goswell, 2016), but for others it is a matter of admitting the limits of our evidence. In his very recent commentary on Ruth, Jeremy Schipper (2016) eventually settles on the early Persian period (late 500s-early 400s B.C.E.) as the date of Ruth, but he qualifies his claim saying, “no single piece of evidence definitively determines the date,” and that his case is “extremely tentative” (p. 22). On the other hand, there are scholars that try to build a cumulative case for a particular origin and purpose, drawing on linguistic, legal, and literary evidence. Put more precisely, these scholars try to evaluate the form of Hebrew used in Ruth – is it the more ancient Standard Biblical Hebrew, or is it the younger Late Biblical Hebrew? They look for genetic-developmental relationships between various law codes in Torah and those described in Ruth to establish a relative dating. Last, they try to match the various details and/or the wider argument of the book with a reasonably paired moment in Israel’s history (i.e. “message fit”). As the logic goes, any one of these components may suggest the probability that Ruth comes from a particular period and that it may address a particular matter.

Following these lines of investigation, scholars tend to date Ruth to one of three periods: the monarchic period, the exilic period, or the post-exilic period (a.k.a. Second Temple period); with each categorization largely correlating with a particular view on the book’s purpose. Kirsten Nielsen (1997) is representative of a strand within the monarchic group, arguing that Ruth would have served to neutralize any claims against David/the House of David over its association with Moab, a traditional enemy of Israel. Edward Campbell (1975), who also dates Ruth to the monarchic period, takes a simpler view and says that Ruth was most likely a didactic text that encouraged readers to emulate the kind and loyal (hesed) behavior of the story’s characters. Filling a minority position, Christian Frevel (1992) and Tod Linafelt (1999) position Ruth in the exilic period. Frevel hears in Ruth a call to exiled Judeans to return from Babylon to the homeland, which makes his position analogous to Campbell’s exhortation toward positive behavior. Alternatively, Linafelt believes that Ruth’s author composed the book with Samuel in mind. In the same way that Samuel highlights some of the negative impacts David had on Israel, Ruth highlights some of the ambiguities in David’s ancestry. Samuel and Ruth work together to force the reader to consider the conundrums of the monarchy. Finally, a good number of scholars (Zakovitch, 1990; Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky, 2011) set Ruth in the post-exilic period, believing that it came to counteract exclusivist tendencies among particular groups within the return community (cf. Ezra-Neh).

Evaluating the Evidence

While there has been a recent revival of interest in the historical development of ancient Hebrew and in the creation of typological periodizations within the language (cf. Rezetko and Young, 2014), such investigations have long been a part of research in Ruth (Driver, 1892; Eissfeldt 1964). Scholars have postulated that if Ruth consistently employs an old form of Hebrew, then it is likely a more ancient text. It would be akin to Shakespearean plays in Western literature – they continue to circulate at present, but their language indicates that these stories have their origins in an earlier time. Alternatively, if Ruth includes late forms and constructions, then the book (though not the characters and events in the story) would come from later in time. An analogy here would be encountering a text that is littered with emojis – we would quickly recognize the text as “young” as it employs recently created linguistic symbols. Unfortunately though (at least for those who desire certainty), Ruth appears to have a mix of both ancient and recent linguistic features. At times, characters speak in “thee”-s, thou”-s, and “thine”-s, but in other places the story has the equivalent of modern slang. With evidence on either side, interpreters suggest explanations (cf. Fischer 2001; Campbell), but none have been able fully to win over the other side.

In addition to investigating Ruth’s Hebrew, scholars have also examined the apparent legal customs/activities that play such a key role in the book. Somewhat like the linguistic argument, the hope is that if we can establish a relative position for a practice in Ruth vis-à-vis a related practice in another book – particularly a book whose date we can fix with certainty – then we will have at least a relative date for Ruth. In ch. 2, Ruth gleans in Boaz’s fields (cf. Schipper), and in ch. 4, Boaz seems to suggest that Naomi is/has been in possession of land (cf. Matthews and Benjamin, 2006), both of which relate to various law codes in Torah, but the greatest amount of attention has gone to Boaz’s legal transaction in the city gate (Ruth 4:1-12). The story appears to engage levirate law (Deut 25) and redemption law (Lev 25), which strongly suggest Ruth’s interaction with core legal traditions, but here again scholars debate the significance of the connections. There is one camp that sees a linear development to the levirate custom moving from a broad pool of potential redeemers (i.e. Ruth), to a narrower pool of just eligible male family members (i.e. Judah and Judah’s sons in Gen 38), to the narrowest pool of only brothers who live together (Deut 25) (Carmichael, 1979; Weisberg, 2009). Alternatively, there is another camp that has accepted the restrictive move from Gen 38 to Deut 25, but which then sees Ruth as a voice reacting to Deut 25 and its limiting stance. Ruth comes to throw the doors open to participation in the levirate custom (Davies 1981; Zevit, 2005). So we see that both camps use the same evidence to argue for competing relative positions for Ruth, and the debate remains at a standstill. Before moving on to arguments related to “message fit,” it is worth noting that two studies (Embry, 2016; Jones, 2016) have come out in recent years that try to relate Ruth’s marriage to Zelophehad’s daughters (Num 27, 36) and the desire to let women inherit while also protecting family land holdings (cf. Tobit). These studies may provide a new point of reference against which to compare Ruth and its practices, but as of yet, there has not been enough time for scholars to critically engage these new ideas.

Finally, we are left to argue over whether we can ascribe a particular argument or message to Ruth, and if this is possible, if we can associate this message with a circumscribed moment in Israel’s religio-intellectual development. Of all the lines of argument for Ruth’s origin and purpose, this approach is noticeably the most vulnerable to circular reasoning – if one’s date for the book influences one’s belief about its message or vice versa, then we are assuming our conclusion – but the effort will still be valuable if it helps us probe aspects of the text. Further, while open to the charge of circularity, it is also possible that we could hit on a historical accuracy through this investigation.

If the reader will allow the author to step more overtly into the frame of this study, I would suggest that we should begin by rejecting the idea of Ruth as a simple didactic tale or idyllic novella. Ruth certainly is a model character within the story, and Boaz also seems to go beyond what Torah strictly requires of him. However, there is ample reason to see a darker shade to the remaining characters in the story. As background, the un-named crowds of Bethlehemites appear either to be ambivalent towards Ruth, or they are a menace to her. The typical field hand poses a threat to Ruth’s personal safety (Ruth 2:9, 15-16, 22), the closest redeemer backs out of his deal to procure Naomi’s land when he learns that Ruth comes with the deal (Ruth 4:6), and the elders of the town say nothing when this man shirks his responsibility. Some may suggest that the elders do bless Boaz’s marriage to Ruth (Ruth 4:11-12) and that the town’s women rejoice at the birth of Ruth’s child (Ruth 4:14-15, 17), but certain portions of their “blessings” seem suspect. The elders compare Boaz and Ruth to Judah’s liaison with Tamar (Ruth 4:12), which may be a backhanded reference to the scene in Ruth 3, and the women of Bethlehem cut Ruth out of the relationship in their final attribution of Obed’s parentage (Ruth 4:17). Moving closer to home, Naomi initially tries to separate from Ruth in ch. 1 (vv. 8-18), and then she allows Ruth to go and glean in the fields in ch. 2 without warning her of the danger that she faces, though she is well aware that it exists (Ruth 2:22). More poignantly, Naomi is the one to mastermind the plan in ch. 3 – a transparent attempt to have Ruth seduce Boaz and thereby gain his provision (Zakovitch, 1979; Yavin, 2007). Thus, it seems to me that Ruth is not simply a story holding forth characters for emulation. However, this is only one of the three possible arguments that scholars ascribe to the book. We must introduce a further form of analysis to discount the idea of Ruth as a political apology.

In recent years, scholars of the HB/OT have become interested in how certain biblical books reference other biblical books (“re-use” or “inner-biblical citation/interpretation”), a path of study that Ruth scholars have willingly followed (Beyer, 2014). [2] Through careful analysis of repeating motifs/themes and unique phrases, interpreters now argue that the author of Ruth has intentionally cast various characters as re-embodiments of great figures from Israel’s history (Jones). There is not space here to evaluate the evidence for each connection, but we can outline the following as possible re-uses: Ruth is a new Abram, a new Patriarch (Isaac, Jacob, Moses) of Israel, a new Rebekah, a new Tamar, and a renewed mother of Moab. Alternatively, Elimelek and Naomi stand out as re-enactments of the failures of the ancestors. Elimelek follows Abram’s example by abandoning the land during a famine, while Naomi mirrors Judah’s attempts to send away a foreign daughter-in-law with a legitimate claim on a levirate partner. These observations, then, provide a second perspective through which to evaluate the message or argument of Ruth. Those that place Ruth in the pre-exilic period frequently argue that the author was trying to demonstrate that, while David did have Moabite ancestry, his ancestor Ruth was an exceptional Moabite, and so David (or the Davidic scion) is still acceptable as a ruler of Israel. The author’s decision to cast Ruth in the mold of Israel’s greatest heroes and heroines would certainly support such a reading of Ruth, but this is only one strand within the story. If a pro-David writer was trying to win over skeptics, it is less clear why this person would associate the Bethlehemite community (sans Boaz) with the failings of the ancestors. Such a literary creation seems just as likely to turn non-Judahites against Bethlehemites/Judeans (i.e. the other half of David’s parentage) specifically, or to offend them all together and turn them against the story. [3]

As a last option for understanding Ruth, I would offer that Ruth does fit well when set against the background of the early post-exilic period. The literature on this time is vast and continues to grow, but it is safe to say that the small community in Judea in the late 500s to early 400s B.C.E. conflicted over various societal issues, one of which was how they should define the boundaries of their community. The prophet Zechariah believed that Jerusalem would throng with foreigners who would count as Yhwh’s people (Zech 2:15[EV 11]), but other persons from the Ezra-Nehemiah narrative feel that foreigners have no part in the community (Ezra 4:1-3; 9:1-4; Neh 13:1-3). This is not to say that Ruth reacts directly to the Ezra-Nehemiah text, nor should we read Ezra-Nehemiah uncritically as plain history, but it is reasonable to hold that community cohesion and in-group/out-group questions were live topics at the time. Within this debate, we can see how Ruth provides a counterfactual to a certain exclusivist perspective toward outsiders. The text is not so bold as to claim that all non-Israelites/Judeans should count as people of Yhwh, but it does demonstrate that there are cases where a foreigner can reasonably measure up to the standard of a true Israelite. For her part, Ruth is surprisingly Torah pious – she honors her mother, she follows gleaning law, she avoids fornication, and she encourages redemption. There are even parts of her life that mimic events in the lives of the nation’s founders. On the other hand, it is also true that bonafide members of the community can fail to follow the basic standards of Israel’s identity. The Bethlehemites do not treat a foreigner in their midst well, and Elimelek and Naomi appear to repeat the mistakes of the ancestors. The only figure to run counter to this characterization is Boaz. He goes out of his way to support Ruth, and in so doing, Yhwh takes him up into her storyline and allows Boaz to participate in the ancestry of David – Israel/Judah’s archetypical king (cf. Zech 12:8). If this reading of Ruth is on the correct track, it suggests for us both a date and a purpose for the book that accounts for the varying characterizations within the story and for the impact that an author may have sought to have on his/her community of readers and hearers.

Bibliography

Beyer, Andrea. Hoffnung in Bethlehem: Innerbiblische Querbezüge als Deutungshorizonte im Ruthbuch . Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 463. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014.

Campbell, Edward F., Jr. Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary . Anchor Bible 7. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

Carmichael, Calum M. Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1979.

Davies, Eryl W. “Inheritance Rights and Hebrew Levirate Marriage: Part 2.” Vetus Testamentum 31, no. 3 (1981): 257-68.

Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament . 4th ed. International Theological Library. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892.

Embry, Brad. “Legalities in the Book of Ruth: A Renewed Look.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41, no. 1 (2016): 31-44.

Eissfeldt, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumrān-Schriften: Entstehungsgeschichte des alten Testaments . 3., neubearbeitete Aufl. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1964.

Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Ruth: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation . JPS Bible Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011.

Fewell, Danna Nolan, and David M. Gunn. Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth . Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990.

Fischer, Irmtraud. Rut: Übersetzt und ausgelegt . Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2001.

Frevel, Christian. Das Buch Rut . Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament 6. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992.

Gow, Murray D. The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose . Leicester: Apollos, 1992.

Greenstein, Edward L. “Reading Strategies and the Story of Ruth.” Pages 211-31 in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader . Edited by Alice Bach. London: Routledge, 1999.

Jones III, Edward Allen. Reading Ruth in the Restoration Period: A Call for Inclusion . Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 604. London: Bloomsburry T&T Clark, 2016.

Kaiser, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme . Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969.

Lau, Peter H. W., and Gregory Goswell. Unceasing Kindness: A Biblical Theology of Ruth . New Studies in Biblical Theology 41. Downers Grove: Apollos, 2016.

Linafelt, Tod. “Ruth.” Pages xiii-90 in Ruth and Esther . Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.

Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East . Fully rev. and exp. 3d. Mahwah: Paulist, 2006.

Nielsen, Kirsten. Ruth: A Commentary . Old Testament Library. Translated by Edward Broadbridge. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Rezetko, Robert, and Ian Young. Historical Linguistics & Biblical Hebrwe: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach . Ancinet Near East Monographs 9. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014.

Schipper, Jeremy. Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . Anchor Bible 7D. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.

Weisberg, Dvora E. Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism . HBI Series on Jewish Women. Lebanon: Brandeis University Press; University Press of New England, 2009.

Yavin, Zipora (Zipi). “Ruth – The Fifth Mother (A Study of the Scroll of Ruth): The Semantic Field as a Ground of Confrontation between Two Giants: The Ephraimite Author against the Judean Author.” [Hebrew] Jewish Studies 44 (2007): 167-213.

Zakovitch, Yair. “Between the Threshing Floor Scene in the Scroll of Ruth and the Tale of Lot’s Daughters.” [Hebrew] Shnaton 3 (1979): 29-33. . Ruth: With an Introduction and Commentary . [Hebrew] Miqra le-Yisrael. Tel Aviv: Am Oved Publishers, 1990.

Zenger, Erich. Das Buch Ruth . Zücher Bibelkommentare 8. 2. Aufl. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992.

Zevit, Ziony. “Dating Ruth: Legal, Linguistic and Historical Observations.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 117 (2005): 574-600.

[1] Much of the content in this essay is a review of the work that I have done in Reading Ruth in the Restoration Period: A Call for Inclusion .

[2] We should note that some scholars have tried to assign Ruth a date by positioning it relative to the books that it cites. However, dating other books in the HB/OT can be as difficult as dating Ruth, so such attempts remain in dispute.

[3] This point seems to create similar problems for the minority of scholars that set Ruth in the exilic period.

Add new comment

Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
Faithfulness of God
Saving Grace
Adoption by God

U.S. Edition

Arts & Culture
Bible & Theology
Christian Living
Current Events
Faith & Work
As In Heaven
Gospelbound
Post-Christianity?
TGC Podcast
You're Not Crazy
Churches Planting Churches
Help Me Teach The Bible
Word Of The Week
Upcoming Events
Past Conference Media
Foundation Documents
Church Directory
Global Resourcing
Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

Invitation to Ruth

The Book of Ruth is a well-loved short story. Part of this affection is that the narrative has all the elements of good drama: an engaging plot, interesting characters, tension, romance, conflict, people overcoming hardship, and so much more. The moving account ends like a Cinderella story, in which the two main figures find love, marry, and have children. Some commentators rely on this type of reading as they explain the intent of the book, seeing the major characters and their love for each other as a model of God’s love for us.

Along similar lines, some writers—perhaps even the earliest Hebrew readers of the book—emphasize the moral virtues of the people in the book. For example, in Ruth 3:11, Boaz calls Ruth “a worthy woman;” the Hebrew term for “worthy” is one that reflects integrity, skill, and honor. In the English Bible, Ruth is the eighth book in the Old Testament immediately after the book of Judges, but in the Hebrew Bible, it comes right after the book of Proverbs. Why so? In the last chapter of Proverbs, the author asks whether anyone can find “a worthy woman” (Prov 31:10). The Book of Ruth answers the question of Proverbs with a historical example: Boaz found a worthy woman. In fact, the book refers to Boaz as “a worthy man” (Ruth 2:1). The upright characters of Ruth and Boaz are certainly worthy of emulation, but the theme of moral virtue still does not fully reflect the purpose of the book.

The book has a greater purpose than simply being a moral story of human uprightness. The author tells a story that took place in the time of the judges ( see commentary on Judges for more on this period ), which is one where “there was no king in Israel” (Judg 21:25). The Book of Ruth provides an account of the ancestry of David, perhaps the greatest king of ancient Israel. The story ends by disclosing the fact that Ruth and Boaz are David’s great grandparents. The story, therefore, is not merely a moral story of integrity, but it points ahead to the coming king.

But even David’s appearance is not the climax of the book. David himself ultimately points to the coming of a final king, who is Jesus Christ, the son of David. The genealogy of David at the close of the Book of Ruth (4:18–22) is essentially the same found in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:3–6). The one difference between the two genealogies is that Matthew includes the names of two Gentile women, Rahab and Ruth, in the ancestry of Jesus. One reason for that incorporation is to point to the reality of the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s kingdom. The glorious conclusion of the Book of Ruth is the coming of the Messiah, and the reader needs to keep this in mind when studying the book.

The Book of Ruth describes the redemption and inclusion of Gentiles into the lineage of David and of David’s son, the Messianic King.

“But Ruth said, ‘Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.’”

— Ruth 1:16 ESV

The Book of Ruth may be outlined simply according to four scenes, as follows:

Scene 1: In Moab (1:1–18)

A setting of adversity (1:1–5), the lord’s compassion (1:6–9), the great cling (1:10–14), ruth’s confession (1:15–18), scene 2: in bethlehem (1:19–2:23), homecoming (1:19–22), in the fields (2:1–7), the conversation (2:8–17), ruth returns from the field (2:18–23).

Scene 3: At the Threshing Floor (3:1–18)

Hatching a Plan (3:1–6)

At the heap of grain (3:7–13), back to bethlehem (3:14–18), scene 4: at the gate (4:1–22), in the courtroom (4:1–12), the descendant (4:13–22).

1:1 The opening words of the text “in the days when the judges ruled” provide the timing and setting of the story. What do we know of this period? The book of Judges ends with the statement, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25). It was a time of moral relativism, decay, and anarchy. No central political authority or spiritual focus existed in Israel. As a result, the book of Judges records a downhill spiral in Israel’s moral activity. By the end of the book, we read of the downright salacious and obscene story of the Benjaminites. This setting serves as a foil to the Book of Ruth ( see commentary on Judges for more on this period ). Although many in Israel lacked moral fiber and acted in-line with the ungodly Canaanites, not everyone was behaving that way. In this vein, the author invites us to consider Boaz and Ruth. This bright spot in a dark time testifies to the reality that the Apostle Paul would later proclaim, namely that God “did not leave himself without witness” in past generations (Acts 14:17).

Besides the general historical timing of the events of the book, the author opens by explaining that a physical famine had come upon Israel—a likely sign of God’s displeasure with Israel’s unfaithfulness (Lev 26:18–20). The story then becomes particularized, as one man and his family left Israel because of the natural disaster. Ironically, the man was from the town of Bethlehem, a name that means “house of food”! For the reader, the name is also a reminder that this town was the home of the later great king of Israel, David, and the place of birth of the later even greater Messianic king, Jesus.

The text then says that the man traveled to Moab to sojourn there. A sojourner was one who worked in a foreign country but had few of the rights and privileges of the citizenry. He was one who did not own land but was generally in the service of a native (in this case, a Moabite). The Moabites were a pagan people who worshipped the gods Chemosh, Baal Peor, and many others. During the period of the judges, they were an archenemy of Israel (see Judg 3:12–30). So, this Israelite man left his ancestral lands allotted to him by the Lord, and he went to Moab to work under pagan authority. He, therefore, appears to have put his family in harm’s way. Was it the right thing to do? One point to consider is the fact that not everyone reacted to the famine by resorting to sojourning. Apparently, many—like Boaz—remained in the land of promise.

1:2 The names of the family members are important for interpreting the story. The man’s name was Elimelech, which means “my God is king;” his name is ironic, since “there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25). This man and his actions were a testimony to the relativism of the time. His wife’s name was Naomi, which means “sweet” or “pleasant.” Later in the story, after much suffering, the woman told the women of Bethlehem not to call her Naomi (“sweet”) but rather to address her as Mara (“bitter”).

Elimelech’s family were Ephrathites. This clan was part of the tribe of Judah that lived near Bethlehem. This denotation is to remind the reader, again, of the future coming of King David: we read in 1 Samuel 17:12 that David “was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons.” David was not only from the tribe of Judah and a Bethlehemite, but he was of the very clan of Elimelech’s family.

1:3–5 The family was in dire straits. They lived under famine, and then they came under Moabite authority for “about ten years.” They were obviously affected by their circumstances, as is evident in the fact that the two sons married Moabite women in disobedience to God’s word (see Deut 7:3–4). Tragedy then struck, as both Elimelech and his two sons died. This left Naomi in a grave situation. As an Israelite widow with no sons, she was unprotected and faced destitution, poverty, and perhaps even enslavement. She was now a cast-off, one of the unwanted class. What was she to do?

1:6 Naomi now planned to return to her family’s inheritance in Judah for two reasons. First, her life in Moab had become untenable: she was a widow without any means of support in a pagan society. Second, she heard that God had visited his people and ended the famine. Yahweh had brought the famine, and now he graciously removed it. The text underscores the providence of God over nature.

A leading word appears throughout Ruth 1:6–22: the verb “to return” occurs twelve times. Although this verb has a common usage of a person changing course and physically returning to a place, it also has a spiritual significance in the Old Testament. The Old Testament uses the word to describe a person repenting and turning to God (e.g., Hos 3:5; 6:1; 7:10). Its repetition in the text likely indicates that the characters were not only returning/going to the land of promise, but also returning/turning to Yahweh.

1:7–9 As Naomi began her journey back to Bethlehem, her two widowed daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompanied her. Ironically, the two of them would arrive in Bethlehem in the same state as Naomi in Moab; they would be widows with no male protection and sojourners in a foreign land. According to ancient Near Eastern law, the two women were not required to go with Naomi but had every right to return to their own families. Naomi urged them to return to their Moabite families where they would receive care and protection. She then pronounced a blessing on them by invoking the name of Yahweh, the covenant name of the God of Israel. She called for Yahweh to “deal kindly” with them—a strong word in Hebrew ( chesed ), best translated as “covenant loyalty.” Naomi was requesting that the covenant God of Israel would show covenant loyalty to these two Moabite women and entrusting them to his care.

1:10–13a Although Orpah and Ruth asserted that they would yet go with their mother-in-law, Naomi was insistent that they do no such thing. She argued that Israel held no prospects for these Moabite women. Naomi would have nothing to offer them. She was indigent, widowed, and had no sons who could marry Orpah and Ruth. Here, the reader is introduced to the important Hebrew custom called “the levirate law” (the word levir is Latin for “a husband’s brother”). The law is related most clearly in Deuteronomy 25:5–6:

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

Naomi was emphasizing for Orpah and Ruth that she has no sons to perform this custom and, therefore, was attempting to dissuade them from traveling with her. (As an aside, this law will play an important role later in the book.)

1:13b–14 Naomi then highlighted her own bitter plight that would have negative effects on Orpah and Ruth. She concluded that “the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.” Naomi understood that her adversity was not due to chance or mere circumstance, but history was playing out according to the providence of God. Naomi’s rational plea resulted in a divergence of response: Orpah kissed Naomi goodbye, but Ruth clung to her so as not to be separated.

1:15–16a Naomi then urged Ruth to follow her sister-in-law and return to Moab. Ruth, however, was resolute. She dedicated herself to Naomi and was determined to follow her to Israel. This commitment is underscored by a series of statements grammarians call by the Latin phrase idem per idem (a figure of speech in which the same verb or noun is used of the actions of two different people). The series of statements “where you go , I will go ”; “where you lodge I will lodge ”; “your people shall be my people ”; and so on underscores the oneness of purpose and unity of action between the two women. Ruth was pledging undying allegiance and fidelity to Naomi.

1:16b–18 Ruth’s vow, however, was not only to Naomi. She declared the idem per idem , “your God, my God.” That affirmation is a non-verbal statement (no verb is stated explicitly), having a unique force in the Hebrew. The claim was like a thunder-clap. Back in Ruth 1:15, Orpah had returned to her gods. Ruth, on the contrary, was renouncing the polytheism of the Moabites and embracing the monotheism of the Hebrews. Ruth 1:17 confirms this conversion as Ruth invokes the name of the Lord, the name Yahweh, the covenant name of the God of Israel. Ruth’s conversion and oath silenced Naomi.

The conversion of a Gentile, pagan Moabite to the true faith ought to shock us as well. This conversion further points to a greater reality: The Gentiles are included in the people of God by faith. And, as we mentioned in the introduction , this is one important reason that Matthew includes Ruth (and Rahab) in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:5).

1:19 Nothing is said in the text about the journey to Bethlehem. It simply says that they “went on until they came to Bethlehem.” Thus, a time gap exists between Ruth 1:18, 19. This trip was approximately 40–50 miles or 65–80 kilometers in rugged terrain that was mostly uphill. It would have taken days to complete the trip. This gap should remind us to slow down when reading and realize that some events take a long time to unfold.

When the women arrived in Bethlehem, the entire town was “stirred.” This word in the original carries the idea of “being in commotion,” and so the town was in turmoil and confusion because of their unexpected arrival. The gossip was abuzz, as the women of the town asked, “Is this Naomi?” This question may have had a malicious angle, or it may have been asked out of mere curiosity.

1:20–21 Naomi responded directly by using a wordplay on her own name. Back in Ruth 1:2, her name was defined as meaning “sweet” or “pleasant.” She told the women of Bethlehem not to call her that, but rather, they were to call her Mara, meaning “bitter.” Naomi had used that word back in Ruth 1:13 when she told Orpah and Ruth that “it is exceedingly bitter to me . . . that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.” Her name change reflected her understanding of the providence of God. She declared in Ruth 1:20–21 that God had done four things to her: dealt bitterly with her, brought her back empty, testified against her (the verb “testified” can mean “afflicted” in the original), and brought trouble upon her. These were all bitter providences. Naomi, however, was not blaming God for her situation. She was simply recognizing God’s hand in all the eventualities of life and responding with endurance and patience to them all.

1:22 This section ends with the statement that Naomi and Ruth had come to Bethlehem “at the beginning of the barley harvest.” The barley harvest was the first harvest of grain during the agricultural year, and it was soon followed by the wheat harvest. This year, the harvest was rich (Ruth 1:6), and abundant workers would be needed in the fields. Ruth, then, would be able to find work, feed the family, and meet Boaz. This certainly was God’s timing, and it was a sweet providence.

2:1 The opening verse of this section is a parenthesis, interrupting the flow of the story. The author now introduces the reader to a man named Boaz. Boaz was a “relative” of Naomi’s husband Elimelech. This word had a broad range of meaning in ancient Hebrew and, therefore, the reader is uncertain of the exact relationship between the two men. The verse also says that Boaz was of Elimelech’s “clan,” which was an extended family based on consanguinity (a multi-generational blood relationship). Yet, the drama heightens in the story because we do not yet know how close the relationship between the two men is.

Boaz was “a worthy man;” the word “worthy” can refer to wealth, but it often can mean integrity, valor, and honor. His character was confirmed by the meaning of his name: “in him is strength.” Later, when Boaz’s great-great-grandson Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, he called one of the foundational pillars of the edifice “Boaz” (1Kgs 7:21). The man Boaz and the pillar of the same name shared similar characteristics; one was a pillar in Bethlehem, upholding the community, and the other was a pillar in the temple, upholding the monumental structure.

2:2–3 Here the author picks up the story of Ruth again. According to Hebrew law, the farmer must only glean and reap his fields one time during the harvest; he was not to strip his fields bare (Lev 19:9–10). He was to leave the edges of his fields unharvested, and what was missed in the fields was to be left for the disadvantaged in Israel. Ruth asked Naomi if she could go to the fields and glean after the reapers, as one of the indigents in the land.

After receiving her mother-in-law’s permission, she went out to labor in the fields, and “she happened to come” to the field belonging to Boaz. How is the reader to understand this comment that appears to say that she came to this field by chance? Perhaps it was a tongue-in-cheek line by the author who was aware of God’s providence driving the story. Or, perhaps, from Ruth’s perspective it appeared to have been by chance; she had not planned it. The popular statement attributed to John Flavel is helpful in understanding the perspective of the writer in this passage: “God’s providence is like Hebrew, it must be read backwards.”

2:4–7 Ruth 2:4 begins with the word “behold”; this is an emphatic statement of surprise. Our new character is now reintroduced. Boaz’s timing was perfect because it was God’s timing. Here was the industrious, hard-working, “worthy” man coming to oversee the work; he was not an absentee landlord. Inspecting the work, Boaz noticed an unfamiliar person, and he discreetly asked his head reaper about her. Ruth’s reputation as an upright woman had preceded her work in the field; her care for her mother-in-law gave her a sterling name among the people of Bethlehem. In addition, her work in the field testified to her honorable, diligent character. The chief reaper explained to Boaz that Ruth worked in the field all day “except for a short rest.” A precise, direct reading of the reaper’s claim is, “This (field) is her dwelling, the house is little.” In other words, the field has been Ruth’s dwelling place all day long, and her house in town meant little to her. She was a person of industry and fortitude; in fact, she was much like Boaz!

2:8–9a After hearing the report, Boaz turned to speak directly to Ruth. He spoke to her with kindness and respect. Then he provided for her in two ways. First, he gave her protection. He told her to glean only in his field and to keep close to his “young women.” These women were likely not slaves or servants but young, unmarried women from Boaz’s clan—well protected due to kinship. He also told the young men working in the field not to assault her. Ruth, as an indigent foreigner, was vulnerable and so Boaz safeguarded her well-being.

2:9b–16 Second, Boaz provided for Ruth’s sustenance. He told her to take from the water provided for the laborers in the field. He then invited her to a meal prepared for the reapers, that included roasted grain. When they returned to work, Boaz told the reapers to let Ruth glean right in the areas where they labored: here she would not get mere leftovers but the very best pickings of the crop. Additionally, he ordered his workers to leave sheaves of grain that she could easily pick up and bundle.

Ruth responded to Boaz’s actions with great humility and surprise. Ruth uses a play on words here (the verb “take notice” and the noun “foreigner” are related), expressing her wonder at the generosity of Boaz. Foreigners were those who usually lived unnoticed and unrecognized: Ruth thus wondered, why was she noticed by Boaz? She was further startled that he would speak to her so kindly and comfort her although she was merely “a servant” and not “even one of your servants.” Here again Ruth’s humility and honesty shone forth.

Finally, Boaz pronounced the blessing of Yahweh on Ruth, calling for the Lord to bring Ruth’s deeds and conduct to full fruition. In this blessing, he fully recognized Ruth’s conversion, as he described her relationship to the Lord as “under whose wings you have come to take refuge.” Boaz pictured God as a mother bird who protects its young; this is a metaphor in the Old Testament used of God’s people belonging to him and under his care (e.g., Deut 32:11; Exod 19:4).

2:17 Ruth continued to glean until the evening. Then she went and threshed what she had gleaned, separating the good grain from the husks. After this hard labor, Ruth came away with about an ephah of barley (an ephah is about two-thirds of a bushel or eight liters in volume and 30 pounds or 14 kilograms of weight, capable of producing 672 slices of whole grain bread). This was a generous amount for her labors.

2:18 After her labors, Ruth returned to Naomi and showed her the liberal amount of grain she had gleaned. She then gave to Naomi the food “she had left over after being satisfied.” The same wording appeared earlier in Ruth 2:14; in other words, Ruth provided Naomi with some of the roasted grain she had received from Boaz at mealtime in the fields. She not only dragged home the 30 pounds or 14 kilograms of barley from the field, but she also brought home a meal for Naomi. Ruth was one who put others before herself.

2:19–20 Naomi responded by invoking two blessings on Boaz. Naomi’s excitement particularly shines through as she describes the man as “one of our redeemers.” The Hebrew term “redeemer” is go’el , and it plays an important role in the Book of Ruth.

What Is a Kinsman-Redeemer?

A go’el was one who delivered his kin from difficult circumstances, redeeming them from danger. In ancient Israel, the go’el had four basic duties:

1. He was to buy his kin out of bondage, usually brought about when someone went into debt and indentured himself to another Hebrew (Lev 25:47–49; Deut 15:12–17);

2. He had the duty to buy back tribal land that a relative had sold (Lev 25:23–25);

3. He was to perform the Levirate Law by marrying a widow in the family who had no male heirs and produce a progeny for the dead husband (Deut 25:5–6; see comment on Ruth 1:11);

4. He was to avenge the blood of a relative (Num 35:16–19).

The concept of redemption by a go’el was a wonderful picture in Scripture of God’s work for his people. Throughout the Old Testament, the term go’el was used for God interceding on the behalf of his people (Job 19:25–26; Psa 19:14). The exodus out of Egypt was the great redemptive act of the Old Testament wherein God redeemed his people from bondage (Exod 6:6–8). In the New Testament, Jesus is the go’el who brings liberty to his people (Luke 4:16–21). He released his kin from bondage (Rom 8:29), he reclaimed an inheritance for his people (1Pet 1:3–4), he raised up a seed in his name (Eph 1:5), and he served as blood avenger (see the book of Revelation). Jesus, the true go’el has come!

2:21–23 Finally, observe how Ruth is described as “the Moabite.” The reference to this status in Ruth 2:2 serves as an inclusio , reminding the reader from the beginning to the end of the chapter that Ruth was an outsider who was in need of redemption.

Scene 3: At the Threshing Floor (3:1-18)

Ruth had been working in the field of Boaz for about three months, until the end of the wheat harvest (Ruth 2:23). No redemptive activity on the part of Boaz had taken place during this time, so Naomi decided to act and help set in motion the process.

3:1 Some commentators argue that Naomi’s actions were manipulative—almost deceitfully so—in order to get what she wanted. Such underhanded dealings are unlikely because Naomi cared much for Ruth’s welfare, and she was concerned for the temporal provision that a redeemer would supply. Indeed, the two of them were eking out a living, but Naomi was at the point that she may have to sell her land to survive (Ruth 4:3). In addition, Ruth, being a Moabite, may have not known how Israelite redemptive laws worked and, thus, Naomi was guiding her.

3:2 Naomi told Ruth to go down to the threshing floor that very evening where Boaz would be overseeing the winnowing of his crop. He would be there all night in order to guard his harvest. Naomi then explained what Ruth was to do: she was to wash herself, anoint herself, and change her clothes. Some commentators believe that Naomi was instructing Ruth to be seductive or alluring. More likely, her actions demonstrated to Boaz that Ruth’s time of mourning was over. In 2 Samuel 12:20, David did the same three things to indicate that he had completed his mourning over his dead child.

3:3–6 Ruth should wait until Boaz was alone before approaching him. Again, this was not a case of scandalous entrapment. She was approaching him privately so that Ruth’s reputation would be preserved in case Boaz rejected her proposal. He was a godly man who would not take advantage of her but would handle matters in a proper way. But it would surely seem that Naomi’s command that Ruth “uncover his feet and lie down” next to Boaz was a lure to sexual activity. To the contrary, it was a highly symbolic act. By entering in and lying at Boaz’s feet under the edge of the blanket, Ruth was coming to the place reserved for a wife. She was, in effect, saying that she wanted to be his wife through redemption. Her act was one of submission and not scandal. The next section of the book provides further testimony to the virtuous activity of both Ruth and Boaz.

3:7 The drama continues as Boaz finishes his food and drink and then lays down to sleep. His “heart was merry”—meaning “to be satisfied or content” and not indicating drunkenness or susceptibility to enticement. Ruth, then, came to him “softly,” a translation that wrongly assumes a tantalizing pose on Ruth’s part. That word, however, bears the sense of her coming to Boaz in “secrecy” and “privacy” (see its use in 1Sam 18:22). This was not a scene of seduction.

Ruth “uncovered his feet” and lay down. Again, some writers see this act as one of sexual activity. To be fair, the verb “uncover” can be used that way in the Old Testament (see, e.g., Lev 20:11, 19–21). On the other hand, the phrase used elsewhere is “to uncover one’s nakedness” and not “to uncover one’s feet.” We ought to take Ruth’s action at face value: she uncovered Boaz’s feet by lifting the blanket, laying down next to his feet, and covering herself with the blanket. Ruth will later explain her metaphorical intent by asking that Boaz “spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” Ruth’s placing the blanket over herself was imagery that she wanted to come under Boaz’s redemptive protection and care. In support of this idea, in Ruth 2:12, Boaz had talked to Ruth about her having come under the “wings” (i.e., protection) of Yahweh.

3:8–13 Boaz woke up “startled” and asked the woman to identify herself. If the two of them were in the midst of a sexual encounter, this question would make no sense. The entire scene was Ruth’s humble and virtuous request for Boaz to act the part of a redeemer. Boaz recognized her sterling character, explaining that the entire town of Bethlehem knew Ruth as a “worthy woman” (similar to the description of Boaz in Ruth 2:1). They were both people of integrity and honor, and to view this scene as a seedy, seductive event diminishes their upright characters.

Boaz promised to act, but he introduces a possible snag to his plans: another go’el was closer in kinship and had the first right of refusal. This meant that Boaz would have to find a way to encourage the nearer redeemer to decide the matter. In any event, Boaz gave his oath to Ruth, and he sealed it by using the covenantal name of Yahweh. His vow was based on the very existence of the God of Israel.

3:14 Ruth stayed at the threshing floor for the remainder of the night and lay at Boaz’s feet. This was a place of protection with no sense of impropriety. The scene portrays restraint and caution. Ruth then arose before dawn: Boaz was concerned for her reputation and, thus, made certain that she would be gone early and unrecognized.

3:15 Before she left, Boaz gave her six measures of barley. Some commentators believe this to have been some type of payment for sexual favors (cf. Gen 38, in which Judah paid-off Tamar for prostitution). Such an interpretation is unseemly. Instead, the grain served as a pledge from Boaz to both Ruth and Naomi that he would keep his word. He was providing a token as a promise that he would seek redemption that very day. The last line of the verse confirms Boaz’s intentions. The ESV renders the line as “then she went into the city” (emphasis mine). The problem is that the Hebrew text has a masculine subject, that is, “then he went into the city.” The point of the masculine subject in the text is that Boaz was serious about his pledge, and he went into Bethlehem immediately to do his duty.

3:16–18 Ruth returned to her home, and she reported to Naomi all that took place. She concluded her account by quoting Boaz that it would not be right for Ruth to return to Naomi “empty-handed.” This is the same word used back in Ruth 1:21, where Naomi declared that Yahweh had returned her from Moab “empty.” Instead, Naomi will no longer be empty, but she will be full because of Boaz’s redemptive promise.

4:1 The setting of the story now shifts, and Boaz appears at the main gate of Bethlehem. The central gate of an ancient town served as the gathering place for the elders of the city, and legal matters were decided there: it was the place of the ancient courtroom. Boaz’s timing was perfect, for the closest redeemer passed by the gate. Boaz called to him, “Turn aside, friend.” The word “friend” in Hebrew is actually two words that commonly mean “whoever, such and such.” The man was not called by name, and this was significant. Perhaps the omission of his name was a mark of shame because he ended up not doing his duty in the matter of redemption (see Deut 25:9–10). In other words, he made his own name disreputable.

4:2–4 Now with the closest redeemer present, Boaz gathered ten elders of the town to serve as a judicial quorum. He then laid out the case before them. We learn that Naomi was planning to sell Elimelech’s land in order to support herself; she was facing indigence. Land, however, could not be sold in perpetuity but must be redeemed by the clan (Lev 25:23–24). Boaz was forcing the nearest go’el to make his decision, and he responded with “I will redeem it.”

4:5–6 Boaz then provides a plot twist: if the nearest go’el would redeem Naomi, he would also have to act on the Levirate law, marry Ruth, and raise descendants for the dead. The first redeemer now drew a different conclusion, “I cannot redeem it.” He knew that if he acted on the redemption, it would sow familial discord because his own inheritance would have to be shared with his progeny and with Ruth. Also, if he had no other sons, the entirety of his estate would pass to the son of the levirate union. He decided to protect his own interests.

4:7–11a So Boaz received the right of redemption and sealed it with an ancient custom of giving one’s shoe to another. This was an act of attestation to the transaction. The elders and people at the gate legally validated the deal by bearing witness to the court case. Their attestation in the original language was only one word: “Witnesses!” All of them spoke in unison and agreement.

4:11b–12 The people, finally, pronounced a three-part blessing on Ruth and Boaz. First, they asked that Yahweh would make Ruth like Rachel and Leah. These two were wives of Jacob, along with their handmaidens, gave birth to the twelve sons of Jacob and, thus, “built up the house of Israel.” Second, they called for Boaz to continue acting “worthily” (same word used of Boaz in 2:1 and Ruth in 3:11), and they asked that his name would be remembered in Bethlehem. And, finally, the people prayed that the house of Boaz would be like “the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah.” This request refers to Genesis 38, in which Tamar, a foreign woman, resorted to the Levirate law to perpetuate the family lines of the tribe of Judah. The people of Bethlehem were from that tribe, and thus, they had great hope that the progeny of Ruth and Boaz would also continue the line of Judah.

4:13 In Ruth 4:13–17 we see the story of the book coming to an initial climax. Ruth’s story has ascended in an arc: she arrived in Bethlehem as “not one of Boaz’s servants” (Ruth 2:13), eventually announced to Boaz, “I am your servant” (3:9), and now, in the present passage, she is declared to be his wife. She then conceived; the sovereignty of God was unmistakable in this event as he opened her womb and she bore a son. Here was the male heir who would carry on the family name and inheritance!

4:14–16 The women of the town showed up and pronounced a blessing on Naomi. They had first appeared in the account back in Ruth 1:9, in which they perhaps denigrated Naomi by asking, “Is this Naomi?” Now they bless Yahweh for providing her with a redeemer. The two speeches of the women of the town serve as an inclusio, bracketing the events in Bethlehem. The women, in a sense, function as a chorus commenting on the movement of the story from bitter to sweet.

4:17 The women of Bethlehem named the child “Obed,” which means “the one who serves.” Obed’s name was apt because he served to preserve the line of Elimelech and the family’s land inheritance. The author now provides an even greater significance in Obed’s carrying on the lineage by recording that Obed became the father of Jesse and the grandfather of David, the great king of Israel. Thus, the reader begins to see a larger picture: we see God at work establishing the royal line of Israel through this unlikely pairing of Ruth and Boaz.

4:18–22 The Book of Ruth ends with a broader genealogy that traced the lineage from Perez, Judah’s son, to David. This more extensive genealogy exists to link David back to Judah, who was promised a royal line and kingship (see Gen 49:8–10). Observe that the genealogy is selective; it does not list every generation from Perez to David. The genealogy lists ten names, and in Hebrew culture the number ten often signifies completion. The idea behind this genealogy is not to provide a historically exhaustive list, but to show that the genealogy reaches its climax and completion in the person of David.

This selective genealogy, however, not only looks backward, but it also looks forward. The list of the ten descendants, from Perez to David, is exactly what Matthew records in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:3–6), adding the three women Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. This demonstrates that the genealogy found at the end of the Book of Ruth finds its ultimate climax in the coming of Jesus, the son of David, and the final king of Israel. Observe how the main characters of the Ruth story—Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth—have faded from the narrative. Their story is not the main story. The coming of the Messiah is the be-all and end-all of the Book of Ruth.

Bibliography

Block, D. L., Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999.

Campbell, E. F., Ruth. The Anchor Bible, vol. 7. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Duguid, I. M., Esther and Ruth. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2005.

Ferguson, S. B., Faithful God: An Exposition of the Book of Ruth . Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2005.

Hubbard, R. L., The Book of Ruth. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.

Permissions

The text of Ruth , excluding all Bible quotations, is © 2023 by The Gospel Coalition. The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gives you permission to reproduce this work in its entirety, without any changes, in English for noncommercial distribution throughout the world. Crossway, the holder of the copyright to the ESV Bible text, grants permission to include the ESV quotations within this work, in English. In addition, TGC gives you permission to faithfully translate the work into any other language, but you may not translate the English ESV Bible into another language. If you wish to include Bible quotations with the translated work, you will need to obtain permission from a publisher of a Bible translation in the same language. All scripture quotations are taken from the ESV® Bible (the Holy Bible, English Standard Version®) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. ESV Text Edition: 2016. All rights reserved. The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license. The ESV may not be translated into any other language. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Naomi Widowed

1:1 In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. 2 The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. 3 But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, 5 and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.

Ruth’s Loyalty to Naomi

6 Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the fields of Moab that the LORD had visited his people and given them food. 7 So she set out from the place where she was with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah. 8 But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each of you to her mother’s house. May 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 of you in the house of her husband!” Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept. 10 And they said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” 11 But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? 12 Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, 13 would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake 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.

15 And she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” 16 But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where 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. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” 18 And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more.

Naomi and Ruth Return

19 So the two of them went on until they came to Bethlehem. And when they came to Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them. And the women said, “Is this Naomi?” 20 She said to them, “Do not call me Naomi; 1 call me Mara, 2 for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. 21 I went away full, and the LORD has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi, when the LORD has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?”

22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.

[1] 1:20 Naomi means pleasant [2] 1:20 Mara means bitter

Your browser does not support JavaScript. Please note, our website requires JavaScript to be supported.

Please contact us or click here to learn more about how to enable JavaScript on your browser.

Change Country
Resources /
Insights on the Bible /
The Historical Books

Listen to Chuck Swindoll’s overview of Ruth in his audio message from the Classic series God’s Masterwork .

Who wrote the book?

According to the Talmud (Jewish tradition), the prophet Samuel wrote the book of Ruth. The text itself says nothing of the author, but whoever wrote it was a skilled storyteller. It has been called the most beautiful short story ever written.

The final words of the book link Ruth with her great-grandson, David (Ruth 4:17–22), so we know it was written after his anointing. The genealogy at the end of the book shows David’s lineage through the days of the judges, acting as a support for his rightful kingship. Solomon is not mentioned, leading some to believe the book was written before David ascended the throne.

Where are we?

The events of Ruth occurred sometime between 1160 BC and 1100 BC, during the latter period of the judges (Ruth 1:1). These were dark days, full of suffering brought about by the Israelites’ apostasy and immorality. Part of the judgments God brought upon His sinful people included famine and war. The book of Ruth opens with a report of famine, which drove Naomi’s family out of Bethlehem into neighboring Moab. Naomi eventually returned with Ruth because she heard “that the LORD had visited His people in giving them food” (1:6).

Readers can identify this interlude as part of the cyclical pattern of sin, suffering, supplication, and salvation found in Judges. But this story stands as a ray of light, showing the power of the love between God and His faithful people. The author gave the reader a snapshot perspective—one family, in a small town, at the threshing floor—as opposed to the broader narratives found in Judges.

Why is Ruth so important?

The book was written from Naomi’s point of view. Every event related back to her: her husband’s and sons’ deaths, her daughters-in-law, her return to Bethlehem, her God, her relative, Boaz, her land to sell, and her progeny. Almost without peer in Scripture, this story views “God through the eyes of a woman.” 1

Naomi has been compared to a female Job. She lost everything: home, husband, and sons—and even more than Job did—her livelihood. She joined the ranks of Israel’s lowest members: the poor and the widowed. She cried out in her grief and neglected to see the gift that God placed in her path—Ruth.

Ruth herself embodied loyal love. Her moving vow of loyalty (Ruth 1:16–17), though obviously not marital in nature, is often included in modern wedding ceremonies to communicate the depths of devotion to which the new couples aspire. The book reveals the extent of God’s grace—He accepted Ruth into His chosen people and honored her with a role in continuing the family line into which His appointed king, David, and later His Son, Jesus, would be born (Matthew 1:1, 5).

What's the big idea?

Obedience in everyday life pleases God. When we reflect His character through our interactions with others, we bring glory to Him. Ruth’s sacrifice and hard work to provide for Naomi reflected God’s love. Boaz’s loyalty to his kinsman, Naomi’s husband, reflected God’s faithfulness. Naomi’s plan for Ruth’s future reflected selfless love.

The book of Ruth showed the Israelites the blessings that obedience could bring. It showed them the loving, faithful nature of their God. This book demonstrates that God responds to His people’s cry. He practices what He preaches, so to speak. Watching Him provide for Naomi and Ruth, two widows with little prospects for a future, we learn that He cares for the outcasts of society just as He asks us to do (Jeremiah 22:16; James 1:27).

How do I apply this?

The book of Ruth came along at a time of irresponsible living in Israel’s history and appropriately called the people back to a greater responsibility and faithfulness before God—even in difficult times. This call applies just as clearly to us today.

We belong to a loving, faithful, and powerful God who has never failed to care and provide for His children. Like Ruth and Boaz, we are called to respond to that divine grace in faithful obedience, in spite of the godless culture in which we live. Are you willing?

Carolyn Custis James, The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 28.

Bible Study Chart

Ruth overview chart.

View Chuck Swindoll's chart of Ruth , which divides the book into major sections and highlights themes and key verses.

View a list of Bible maps , excerpted from The Swindoll Study Bible.

The Book of Ruth reminds us to take seriously the lives of ordinary people

Though the media tells us that trust in institutions is at an all-time low and that increasing numbers of people think only of themselves rather than the common good, the biblical story of Ruth tells quite a different tale. Two vulnerable women place extraordinary trust in each other, treat their townspeople with decency and in return are treated respectfully, play a major role in their village, and contribute to the welfare of the nation. Without their being aware of it, the women perform a small-scale version of the Exodus, the great deed that brought Israel into existence centuries before. The scribal author, like other scribes, preferred a story to a sermon, confident that watching these two women act will make readers appreciate the communal importance of trust and respect for others.

In the biblical story of Ruth, two women make their way toward the village of Bethlehem five miles south of Jerusalem, the hometown of King David. Both women are widows. Naomi is perhaps in her late 40s and Ruth her late 20s. Both are also orphans—more accurately fatherless—lacking the support of a nearby family. Ten years earlier, severe famine forced Naomi’s family to leave Israel for Moab, west of the Dead Sea. During the course of their stay, Naomi’s two sons married Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. Misfortune fell heavily on the family there, however: Death took Naomi’s husband Elimelech and her two sons.

Hearing that the Lord had brought prosperity back to her homeland, Naomi decided to return. She bade farewell to her daughters-in-law, addressing what was foremost in their minds: “May the Lord guide you to find a husband and a home [In Hebrew, mĕnȗḥāh ] . Have I other sons in my womb who could become your husbands?” Orpah returned to her family in Moab, but Ruth declared she would never leave her mother-in-law:

Wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God, my God. Where you die I will die, and there be buried. May the Lord do thus to me, and more, if even death separates me from you!

Although the arrival of the two women stirred excitement among Bethlehem’s townswomen, Naomi rebuffed their greetings, “Do not call me Naomi [‘Sweet’]. Call me Mara [‘Bitter’], for the Almighty has made my life very bitter. I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty.” God’s proper name, YHWH—conventionally rendered by the title “Lord”—occurs 18 times in the story, all but one time (Ruth 4:13) uttered in a blessing or a description.

Is the Book of Ruth more than a well-told story? Did it tell its original readers something important? Does it tell us something important today?

A parenthesis meant only for readers informs us that Naomi had a kinsman on her husband Elimelech’s side, Boaz, obliged by custom to help her. Unaware of that relationship, Ruth goes to a barley field to glean what the harvesters left behind. The field belongs to Boaz, who is similarly unaware that Ruth belonged to Naomi’s household, for he has to ask the overseer who the unfamiliar gleaner is. Registering her connection to Naomi, he tells Ruth how impressed he is by her dedication to her mother-in law—exclaiming that she may be blessed for leaving her own family and country to remain with Naomi. He sees to it that she takes home an abundance of barley to Naomi.

Upon discovering that Ruth gleaned in Boaz’s field, Naomi exclaims, “May he be blessed by the Lord, who never fails to show kindness (Hebrew ḥesed ) to the living and to the dead. This man is a near relative of ours, one of our redeemers ( gō’ēl ).” The Hebrew word ḥesed , important in the story, means “affectionate loyalty especially to relationships”; Hebrew gō’ēl , also important (with 13 occurrences), means “redeemer” as a noun and “act as redeemer” as a verb.

Aware now of Boaz’s esteem for Ruth, Naomi devises a plan to find a secure home (Hebrew mĕnȗḥāh ) for her daughter-in-law. Earlier, Naomi expressed the wish that the Lord guide her daughters-in-law to find a husband and a home (Hebrew mĕnȗḥāh ). Now she finds herself to be the instrument for carrying out that wish. Her plan is simple: Ruth is to dress in her best attire and lie at the feet of the sleeping Boaz. When he wakes up, he will know she wants to be his bride. Just as Naomi planned, Boaz wakes from sleep, finds Ruth lying near him and quickly agrees to act as her redeemer—that is, a relative who comes to the aid of another family member in need. Touchingly, he tells Ruth, “You have been even more loyal ( ḥesed ) now than before in not going after the young men, whether rich or poor.” Grateful, he fills her shawl with six measures of barley. And, as Naomi had also predicted, he settles matters that very day.

Another tale might have ended then and there with Boaz’s assurance of marriage to Ruth—but this story is not primarily about romance. The story of Ruth (likely written around the time of Israel’s return from exile, the fifth century B.C.E.) widens its horizon to include Naomi, the villagers and Israel’s history and hopeful future. Boaz summons the town to the public space, “the gate,” to ascertain whether another relative of Elimelech closer than Boaz is willing to buy back (redeem) the property. When the relative learns that the property must also support Ruth, he bows out. Boaz declares:

You are witnesses today that I have acquired from Naomi all the holdings of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon (Naomi’s deceased sons). I also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, as my wife to raise up a family for her late husband on his estate so that the name of the deceased may not perish from his people and his place.

The villagers give their assent in a double blessing: “May the Lord make this woman come into your house like Rachel and Leah, who between them built up the house of Israel” and “With the offspring the Lord will give you from this young woman, may your house become like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.” The first blessing is a reminder that the story’s real interest is the building up of Israel, because the twelve sons of Leah and Rachel became the twelve tribes of Israel.

The Book of Ruth enables readers to view, in a small-scale way, the foundational biblical story of the exodus.

The second blessing mentions Tamar, who in Genesis 38, like Ruth, bore a child after her husband had died. In the final verses of Ruth, the townswomen acknowledge a shift in relationship and status as they declare that Ruth’s newborn son Obed is the redeemer—not Boaz—and extol Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi and Naomi’s motherly care for the newborn infant. Importantly, Obed will be the father of Jesse and the grandfather of David, the great king of Israel. The story ends with fullness, not the emptiness that Naomi had lamented.

Is Ruth more than a well-told story? Did it tell its original readers something important? Does it tell us something important today? Let me suggest two contributions the book makes to readers today and yesterday.

The first contribution the story makes is to take seriously the lives of ordinary people—villagers, immigrants, married people, widows and the poor (symbolized in the ancient Near East by “widows and orphans”). The story ennobles their actions. People act, but one senses that God directs. Divine action, however, is only visible in people’s actions: Naomi’s decision to return, Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi, Naomi’s plan to take advantage of Boaz’s desire and the townswomen’s recognition of Obed as the ultimate redeemer ( gō’ēl ). The story uncovers the profound significance of the folks in Bethlehem.

The second contribution of Ruth is easily overlooked. It enables readers then and now to view, in a small-scale way, the foundational biblical story of the exodus. In the exodus of the 13th century B.C.E., the Hebrews fled depletion and exploitation and journeyed to Israel, the land of milk and honey. This original exodus from Egypt became a paradigm and explanatory model centuries later for the people’s humiliating exile in Babylonia during the sixth century B.C.E., as well as their gradual return to the land of Israel. One can only imagine the suffering of families depleted by their enslavement on state projects. Exilic suffering must have tempted Israelites to doubt that their God always truly cares for “the widow and the orphan.” But God’s mercy and care are not abstractions. They must be embodied in daily life by family members exhibiting loyalty toward each other, by ordinary people doing new things and following their best laws and customs.

The story of Ruth is the miniature of the national exodus, the founding event of Israel. A hint of its symbolism is found in its climax, which is not the marriage of Ruth and Boaz, as one might expect if the story were a romance. No, the climax is the celebration of the widow Naomi “giving birth” to Obed, her redeemer—not of Elimelech’s line alone, but of the nation Israel itself. Obed is in the line of David, the king of all Israel. The birth of Obed is more than an addition to Elimelech’s family; it is a link to the rebirth of Israel.

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

Navigate to any page of this site.

In the menu, scroll to Add to Home Screen and tap it.

In the menu, scroll past any icons and tap Add to Home Screen .

The Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament

D. kelly ogden , jared w. ludlow , and kerry muhlestein , editors, ruth, redemption, covenant, and christ, kerry muhlestein.

Kerry Muhlestein, “Ruth, Redemption, Covenant, and Christ,” in The Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament , The 38th Annual BYU Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009).

Kerry Muhlestein is an associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

The book of Ruth is one of the most loved stories of the Old Testament. Yet sometimes it remains just that, a story from which some readers gain little in the way of doctrine or application. We identify with the story because the principal actors are neither kings nor prophets but the average people of a typical village. There are neither mighty warriors nor great conflicts, but there are intense struggles for surviving life’s difficulties and genuine battles with grief. We love the story because it is so well told, because it has characters we can identify with, because it weaves a plot we can relate to that has a wonderful resolution. Yet we often do not recognize a deeper symbolism in the text.

The book of Ruth carries within its pages some of the most fundamental and powerful doctrines of the kingdom. It speaks of and symbolically demonstrates God’s redeeming power; it teaches us of how we can access that power and exemplifies how we should emulate our Redeemer. Numerous elements of the story serve as a type of Christ. It is about hope in Israel. I believe that some of the reason we love the story so much is because, whether we realize it or not, our souls intuitively resonate with the redemption of Ruth; we long for what happened to her on a mortal level to happen to us in both a mortal and eternal way. Ruth satisfies some of our soul’s yearning for deliverance. It highlights our reasons for hope. We often sense this message without picking up on its full development.

These powerful messages are conveyed by one of the Bible’s most able writers. While we do not know who the author of Ruth is nor when he wrote the book, we can recognize in this writer an extraordinary talent. Realizing this does not take away from the potency of the message, nor from the reality of Ruth’s, Naomi’s, and Boaz’s lives. On the contrary, we can see in this biblical author attributes similar to Isaiah or Neal A. Maxwell in the employment of a God-given gift so that the message of salvation he carries can be delivered all the more meaningfully.

The biblical author’s message is conveyed so smoothly and stylishly, yet its vehicle is a myriad of details. No other book of scripture gives us so many insights into daily life in ancient Israel in so few pages. For the author’s contemporaries, these details were easily understood; they were a part of their everyday world. For us, they must be decoded. They are aspects of a culture strange and foreign. As we delve into such minutia, we run the risk of becoming detained in the details or distracted from the message that flows through the story. Thus we will first dive into the details and then return to many of the same items in a more comprehensive way, having acquired the knowledge that the writer of Ruth assumed his audience had. This will enable the story’s symbols to distill upon us the way the author spoke to our Israelite ancestors.

Cultural Caring, Covenant, and Redemption

We must first understand some important cultural and legal aspects of ancient Israel. The ancient Near East in general—and Israel in particular—incorporated into their culture many ways of providing for those who could not care for themselves. The law of Moses is filled with stipulations regarding how such caring should take place and to whom it was applied. Typically the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the resident alien were among the groups most in need. Prophets continually reminded Israel of their duty to provide for these groups. The law made particular allowances for them. [1] Ruth takes advantage of these allowances in her efforts to sustain herself and her mother-in-law.

One of the ways the Mosaic law provided for the poor was through the practice of gleaning. “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:9–10). When reaping with a scythe, the swinging-arm movement naturally created a circular motion which would leave the square corners of fields untouched without an extra step. The Lord commanded the Israelites not to take this extra step and to leave those corners for the poverty-stricken. Additionally, anything that fell was left for the destitute. Also, some grapes were to be intentionally left for the needy in each vineyard. Through these practices, Israel furnished a way for the impoverished to provide for themselves as long as they were willing and able to engage in some arduous labor. Similarly, in Deuteronomy 24:19 the Lord instructs Israel, “When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.” These laws were given of God to help Israel aid those most in need of help: the poor, the stranger (or foreigner), the widow, and the orphan. Ruth, a poor, foreign widow, would look to these laws in her efforts to provide for herself and Naomi.

Many more elements of Israelite culture and law were aimed at helping those in need. One such needy group was the elderly. Israel had no pension plans, no social security, no assisted living. The responsibility to care for the elderly fell upon their family. It was first the responsibility of children to provide for the aged and the widow; this is one reason why the loss of children was such a staggering blow. David was even willing to waive capital punishment for a murderer in order to forestall a woman being bereft of any children to sustain her (see 2 Samuel 14:4–11).

Ancient Near Eastern societies valued having children both because of the need to care for the elderly and because of the importance of carrying on family lines. [2] Hence, most Near Eastern cultures, including Israel, followed some form of the levirate law of marriage. [3] We understand little of how Israelite levirate marriages worked, but we know enough to decipher the basic principles. If a married man died without children, his brothers were responsible to care for his wife. Part of this care was for one brother to marry and impregnate the new widow; therewith the firstborn child bore the dead brother’s name and served as his heir. This process is spoken of in Deuteronomy: “Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). [4]

This duty was so important that it includes the only stipulated example of public humiliation [5] in the law of Moses for those who were unwilling to take upon themselves the levirate duty:

And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. (Deuteronomy 25:7–10)

Clearly, failure to provide for a widow under levirate customs was viewed as a shameful thing. But how does this relate to the symbolism of taking off the shoe? While many have wrangled over the meaning, I have a suggestion. When shoes are used symbolically in the Old Testament, wearing them denotes a readiness, a preparation to do what needs to be done (see Exodus 12:11; 1 Kings 2:5; and Isaiah 5:27). [6] Given the context of the Deuteronomy passage just cited, it seems that removing someone’s shoe shows their unwillingness to do what needs to be done. If having a shoe on indicates preparation for doing one’s duty, having the sandal taken off signifies a refusal to perform that same duty. The shame of those who are unwilling to serve as levirate husbands is that they will be known as someone who fails to fulfill his obligations. Since some of the reasoning behind a man refusing levirate duty likely had to do with the thought that raising up a child to another man would take inheritance away from his own family, the entire family was to share in the stigma of shame if the father did not fulfill his duty. Such a reprisal would have the effect of making a man who was thinking of his own children and their inheritance reconsider the ramifications that avoiding his responsibility would have on his children.

As noted above, the levirate husband was responsible to care for his brother’s widow and her new child. As the mother and her new husband grew old, that child would assume responsibility for himself and his mother using his dead father’s inheritance. Thus the levirate law both provided for the widow, partially by keeping family land within the family, and prevented family lines from dying out. [7]

Apparently, levirate duty could apply to relatives beyond immediate brothers. It was the responsibility of the entire family to sustain a widow, both in the short term by providing for her needs and in the long term by furnishing her with a child that would provide care in her old age. Societies who continue this practice today speak of protection of the widow as the primary consideration. [8] In ancient Israel, if this system were properly carried out, no widow would find herself without support; she would always be visited in her affliction, brought under the wing of a protective family.

In Israel, the family had another responsibility in looking after its members who had come under hardship. Israel and her ancient Near Eastern neighbors required that all possible means be taken in order to meet a debt. If an individual had difficulty in paying his debt, family land and even family members, including the debtor, were required to be sold as an attempt to meet the obligation. No allowances were made in justice, which demanded debt repayment. Yet the law of Moses also provided a way for mercy to be extended through family members. The closest family member had a right and an obligation to redeem, or buy back, family land or family members who had been sold. [9] “After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: either his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself” (Leviticus 25:48–49). The man who bought his family land or kinsman back was known as the redeemer, or in Hebrew, the gō’el . This was not free deliverance; this was deliverance at a price, and the gō’el paid that price. [10] He met the debt owed by his relative which that kinsman could not pay on his own.

Symbolically, it is important that not just anyone could serve as a redeemer, that only close family members had that right, beginning with the closest relative. [11] This law reminded Israel that they had once been bond servants in Egypt and that the Lord had served as their redeemer. Their covenant with him, beginning with Abraham, had made them eligible for redemption. “But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 7:8). [12]

The Lord had created a custom among his chosen people in such a way that for those in darkest need a hope was provided; [13] for all such Israelites, the concept of a redeemer must have served as a strand of hope in the midst of despair. The existence of a kinsman redeemer, the gō’el , was the hope of Israel. This divinely mandated role stood as a bright shining comfort for those in most desperate need.

It is from the book of Ruth we learn that levirate marriage and the right of redemption were connected. [14] Apparently in some places and times in Israel, the closest kinsman had the duty and obligation to serve as both the levirate husband and the gō’el . [15] The family was to rally in support of those in need and to do for them that which they could not do for themselves, whatever that need may be.

The Mosaic law’s abundant mercy and concern for all—especially those most in need—also included a provision for those who were destitute of both material means and family. If no family ties existed, they could be established by covenants (formed in a variety of ways), which created family ties between people. [16] It is this “creation of an ‘adoptive relationship’ by covenant that is the basis for the Lord’s acts of redemption.” [17]

One group necessitating extra care was the foreigners who had chosen to live among Israel. [18] The Lord extended special aid to these resident aliens in the Mosaic law, often counting them among the widows and orphans as people in particular need. [19] These foreigners did not naturally possess a land inheritance as an Israelite did and thus were at an inherent disadvantage. Besides the laws designed to protect them, the Lord often reminded Israel of their obligation to care for the foreigner—or stranger—who sojourned among them. “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).

While the law does not address the process by which a foreigner became an Israelite, it is clear that it was possible. Before leaving Israel, Moses renewed God’s covenant with them and with the foreigners who dwelt among them (see Deuteronomy 29:10–13). Resident aliens were among the group with whom Joshua reestablished that covenant at Mount Ebal (see Joshua 8:30–35). Shortly thereafter he made a covenant with the Gibeonites that incorporated them into the house of Israel (see Joshua 9). Likewise, the Passover indicates that foreigners could join Israel. “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Exodus 12:48–49). Since circumcision was the mark of Israel’s covenant with Jehovah, its application to a foreigner along with his inclusion in the Passover ritual indicates that the foreigner could, through covenant, become part of Israel. [20] While we do not know the exact mechanism for the covenant which changed a foreigner into an Israelite, clearly such a mechanism and covenant existed. [21] Having become Israelites, these people would have full access to the protections and blessings available through the Mosaic law and God’s covenant with his chosen people. [22] These principles were important for Ruth, who was a native Moabite.

This covenant segues to one last point which must be addressed in order to more fully understand the book of Ruth. There was a special kind of love, mercy, and kindness available only within the context of a covenant. The Hebrew word for this was hesed , an extra measure of kindness and love available to those within a covenant relationship. [23] The greatest acts of hesed were those performed by God on behalf of his people. In many ways, all of the provisions God made for those who were in need and could not care for themselves were provisions of hesed .

With a basic understanding of these cultural elements, we can more fully examine the narrative, finding ourselves more able to draw forth meaning from this powerful book.

Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz within the Covenant

The story takes place during the period of the judges, before Israel has come together under a king. The book of Ruth begins with a familiar theme. A famine has come into the land of Canaan, and some choose to escape this famine by journeying to a foreign land. In this case it is Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and two sons. These sons soon take Moabite women as wives, but do not have children by these wives (despite spending ten years in Moab). In time, tragedy strikes the family as first the father and then the sons die. Besides the grief which would naturally attend the loss of her children, Naomi is now faced with the prospect that she will have no one to care for her in her old age. Confronted with these hardships and having learned that the famine in Judah has ceased, Naomi decides to return to her native home.

Initially, both of her daughters-in-law accompany Naomi on this journey, intent on remaining with her. Somewhere along the way, Naomi must have given much thought to the plight of the two women who were at her side. Being young, they still had the opportunity for remarriage and thus for a family life that could bring them joy and security. Acting on these thoughts, Naomi entreats her loyal daughters-in-law to return home and make a life for themselves. Both Ruth and Orpah maintain that they wish to remain with Naomi, but when Naomi insists, Orpah eventually gives in to her wishes.

Three things are worth noting in this situation. Naomi is very aware that the women who were accompanying her, who were her family by covenant, were volunteering to undergo extreme hardship for the rest of their lives in order to help Naomi. Thus she says to them, “Go, each of you return to your mother’s house; may the Lord perform hesed for you as you have done for the dead and for me” (see Ruth 1:8; author’s translation). Naomi recognizes the covenantal kindness, or hesed , that these women are carrying out. Being aware that she was incapable of performing hesed for them, she asks the Lord to do so. At least in the case of Ruth, the Lord will eventually show hesed , but he will do this through the acts of a mortal: Boaz. Ruth’s intense love and loyalty, manifestations of hesed , are particularly inspiring to us. We cannot read of her devotion without hoping that we will always have a Ruth in our lives, and simultaneously aspiring to be a Ruth for others. Whether we understand the term or not, Ruth motivates us to perform similar acts of hesed ; the devotion in her soul-felt expression feels its way into our souls.

Second, the narrative is not written in a way that portrays Orpah in a bad light. Indeed, this worthy daughter has been fulfilling all that could be expected of her in a stalwart way. It is not a shortcoming on the part of Orpah that is highlighted here, but instead Orpah’s goodness is contrasted with Ruth’s greatness. In a theme that will recur during the narrative, Ruth shows that she is willing to go beyond what is expected of her; she will be extraordinary in her service. [24]

Finally, in insisting that she will accompany Naomi throughout her life, Ruth has altered who will pay the greatest price. Naomi was faced with finishing her life alone, having no one to care for her and see her through the hardships of life. Ruth is willing to forestall that fate for Naomi. However, in staying with Naomi, which seems to dictate that Ruth will not remarry nor have children, Ruth insures that it is she who will face old age all alone. Ruth is fully willing to take Naomi’s potential suffering upon herself, providing relief for a loved one by experiencing that fate instead. This emulation of the Savior is not an accidental message of the story—it is one of its main themes.

When Ruth declares she will stay with Naomi, we learn of Ruth’s conversion. The bold statement “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (Ruth 1:16) confirms that Ruth has become an Israelite in her heart. While we are unaware of what covenant and rite must have accompanied the formalization of these thoughts, we are left in no doubt as to the actuality of Ruth’s conversion. [25]

The great tragedies that have struck Naomi, seemingly undeservedly, raise the age-old question of the justice of God in allowing the innocent to suffer. The author of Ruth artfully raises this theme when Naomi replies to her long-lost friends: “The Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?” (Ruth 1:20–21). While Naomi’s lament does not accuse God directly, it certainly complains of the unjustness of her situation and implicates God is unjust. Her complaint is not addressed at this point in the story but will receive a resounding answer as the narrative moves on and will be fully resolved when Naomi praises God in the middle of the story, as well as when her friends praise him at the end of the story.

The next scene in our narrative begins by making the reader privy to knowledge which Ruth does not possess (see Ruth 2:1). It is crucial to the plot for us to know that Boaz is a man of great worth—a double meaning implied, for he is a man of means and character— and that he is a kinsman of Naomi. We benefit from understanding this while reading of the interactions between Ruth and Boaz, but Ruth has no idea. The actions of these two characters are not influenced by any thought of a possible gō’el relationship; instead we see them acting out of true intent.

Plainly, when the writer says of Ruth that “her hap” was to come to Boaz’s field (Ruth 2:3), he does not intend for us to understand that it was pure luck. The story is full of happenstances which bring about the Lord’s purposes, underscoring that all of these events are directed by God and that the happy conclusion of the story is orchestrated by him as he pours out his hesed on this family.

Our introduction to Boaz wastes no time in establishing him as a man of character and compassion. He goes to great lengths to help Ruth in her efforts. He instructs her to stay in his fields and to work with his maidens under the watchful eye of his men (see Ruth 2:8–9), a measure of invitation and protection that must have served as immeasurable comfort to a foreigner who was earnestly engaged in her first day of labor. He also tells her to partake of the water drawn for his workers, an important commodity in an arid land during heavy work (see Ruth 2:9). He further invited her to partake of the meal he provided for his workers, a great boon to Ruth because it not only provides her with food (see Ruth 2:14) but does so when she is not in a position to have aught with which to prepare any meal for herself. The parched corn she partakes of is more important than we typically realize. Israel and her neighbors followed a custom with grain harvesting that many Middle Eastern societies continue today. Some of the grain is harvested just before it is ripe. It is then roasted, producing a carmelized food that is both tasty and serves as a high-energy food source for its consumers. While the preharvest production and preparation of this meal is expensive for the owner of a field, today workers are often given this food at midday because it enables them to continue their work with vigor throughout the hot afternoon. [26] When Ruth received such a meal, it must have served as a great physical and emotional boost.

Moreover, Boaz secretly charged his workers to leave extra grain for Ruth (see Ruth 2:16). Thus, without her knowledge, her workload was made lighter and her production ability increased. As with Ruth, we see in Boaz someone not only willing to do what the law required but also zealous in keeping the spirit of the law. As a man who far exceeded that which was expected or asked of him, Boaz possessed a greatness of generosity and love to match Ruth’s.

All of Boaz’s efforts proved extremely beneficial for Ruth. When we calculate how much she gathered in one day against known ration amounts and extrapolate that rate to the entire harvest season, it appears that she would have been able to gather enough food for nearly a year while spending time in Boaz’s fields. [27] Such a rate must have been gratifying to her and Naomi.

To me the most impressive thing about Boaz is the reason he did all of this for Ruth. He tells her plainly, “It hath fully been shewed me, all that thou hast done unto thy mother in law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore” (Ruth 2:11). Boaz’s wish is that “the Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust” (Ruth 2:12). We find not only that Boaz is part of fulfilling this wish but that the picture of coming under God’s wing is both a moving image and an important phrase that will come to play later in the story.

Ruth’s success as a gleaner led to difficulty in her journey back to the city, for she had to carry all that she gleaned for the entire distance. The burden of the harvest she gleaned made it obvious to Naomi that someone has shown her kindness. When Ruth reveals that Boaz is the kind man, Naomi immediately sees a possible redemption, and further, she sees the hand of God in the fortuitous turn of events: “May he be blessed by the Lord, who hath not abandoned his hesed to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said to her, the man is near of kin to us, he is one of our redeemers” (see Ruth 2:20; author’s translation). Once she has realized how kindly disposed Boaz is toward Ruth, Naomi sees that the wish she made in Moab for the Lord to show hesed to Ruth is being fulfilled. The opportunity for redemption and levirate marriage under the Mosiac law is obvious to Naomi. The possibility of a levirate marriage leading to the continuation of her husband’s and son’s seed is the reason she states that the Lord is showing hesed to the dead. Furthermore, Naomi’s lament in the first chapter wherein she wondered why the Lord was allowing tragedy to happen to her seems to be fully satisfied in her mind. Her words affirm that she sees the Lord is in control of things and is bringing about a merciful plan for her.

What a wonderful turn of events in the lives of these poor women! The day must have been one of hope and suspense—their first try at providing for themselves. Gleaning was a difficult and uncertain job, relying on it for their sustenance must have been a daunting and foreboding prospect, full of anxiety. Yet in that day of darkness, a potential redeemer must have been a source of great hope. Just as Israel’s hope during their darkest hour while in Egypt was answered by a deliverer, Ruth and Naomi found hope in a righteous Israelite who could serve as a redeemer. They had a hope in Israel.

The fact that Naomi recognized that Boaz was “ one of our redeemers” (emphasis added) denotes that she realized there were others; she was probably even aware that there was a kinsman closer to her than Boaz. Yet because of Boaz’s kindness, her hopes were pinned on this magnanimous man. Her hopes were well placed. It seems that Naomi’s plan for Ruth was already hatching. She merely waited for the perfect time to put it into effect.

Such a time came during the threshing. Threshing was a joyful and meaningful event for Israelite farmers, as it represented a successful conclusion to a long series of labors. [28] It simultaneously represented an excellent opportunity for thieves, so husbandmen often stayed on the threshing floor after the threshing. This time of rejoicing and import, along with its assurance that Ruth could find a private audience with Boaz, seemed to be the perfect opportunity for Naomi’s plan to be put into motion. She explained very carefully to Ruth what she should do, had Ruth prepare herself by washing and dressing (presumably in the best clothes she had), and then let events unfold.

Our writer cloaks the beginning of this scene in darkness and with shrouds of seclusion. [29] Boaz has been merry, has drunk, and has fallen into a heavy sleep on the threshing floor. Ruth has carefully marked where he will lie, and waits for the full cover of darkness to approach her potential redeemer. Here the tension of the story reaches its apex, heightened by the combination of Ruth’s quest and the uncertainty of the outcome that is magnified by images of secrecy and darkness. In this episode of the story, we encounter only the principal actors; no one else knows of their meeting or their plans. Phrases such as “the man” and “a woman” (Ruth 3:8, 16, 18) used in place of their names are further devices of the shroud of secrecy contrived by the writer. Boaz’s insistence that no one know that “a woman” had been there (Ruth 3:14), coupled with his and Naomi’s initial inabilities to recognize Ruth (see Ruth 3:9, 16), and Ruth’s departure before people could recognize each other (see Ruth 3:14) serve to convey this same mood. In contrast to the public lights of the following day, this climactic scene is set in seclusion and dramatic suspense.

These elements of isolation may serve to heighten another dramatic element in the story. The Hebrew words employed by the writer for lying down, uncovering, and feet are words often used as sexual euphemisms in the Hebrew Bible and were sexually charged words. It is possible that these words and this mood was chosen to raise in the mind of the reader the possibility of an intimate encounter. If this is the case, it seems most likely that our writer only did so in order that he might crush the idea, using the potential of impropriety to contrast the reality that nothing of the kind happened. [30] When Boaz invites her to stay until morning, the writer does not use the word for lying down (see Ruth 3:13) but rather for lodging—a word that never carries sexual connotations in the Hebrew Bible. Most likely the trip home would have been too dangerous a journey for Ruth to undertake in the full dark of night, and hence Boaz instructs her to lodge until the grey hours of the morning. It is possible that suspense about this issue was intentionally raised in order to highlight Boaz’s action. Both before and after this episode, Boaz proves himself to be a man who does things exactly the way they should be done or even better. That characteristic is also exemplified on the threshing floor, where the carefully chosen words demonstrate that Boaz does not do anything out of its proper order. Time and again our story presents Ruth or Boaz with choices, and each time they choose valiantly. This quality is strongly highlighted by creating a situation suggestive of sin and using it as a contrast to what actually happened.

Perhaps the most meaningful lines of the story take place there, in the middle of the night, on the threshing floor. There Ruth makes her plea to Boaz, and Boaz affirms his willingness to comply with that request. Most Bible translations—including the King James Version—leave out a few crucial clues that heighten the import of this conversation.

In the King James Version, when Boaz asks who is at his feet, Ruth replies, “I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman” (Ruth 3:9). [31] We can reach deeper levels of understanding by providing a more literal translation: “I am Ruth thy handmaid. Spread thy wing over thy handmaid, for thou art a redeemer.” To understand the implications of this phrase we must remember Boaz’s statement to Ruth during their first meeting, when he said, “The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust” (Ruth 2:12). On the threshing floor, Ruth uses similar language. By asking Boaz to spread his wing over her, Ruth draws upon Boaz’s own imagery, implying that he is the fulfillment of Ruth’s coming under the Lord’s wings. Boaz’s power to redeem her gives him the ability to fulfill this blessing. Boaz’s redemption of Ruth would justify her trust in the Lord. That act by Boaz would simultaneously spread his and the Lord’s wings over the plaintive Moabite. One of the major motifs of the book of Ruth is that people are often the Lord’s means for pouring forth his blessings, or hesed . Here Ruth asks Boaz to be the Lord’s wings.

This idea is furthered by Boaz’s reply to Ruth: “Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter, for thou has shown more hesed in the end than in the beginning; for thou didst not follow after young men, either rich or poor” (see Ruth 3:10; author’s translation). Boaz is also referring to their first conversation, wherein he noted Ruth’s kindness to Naomi. Here Boaz expresses his belief that while Ruth had shown hesed to Naomi (something Naomi has already expressed), she has also shown hesed to Boaz for asking him to be her redeemer and levirate husband. This implies that Boaz was older and probably even unmarried and childless, though we cannot be sure of the latter suppositions. In any case, he feels that Ruth’s covenantal kindness to Naomi leads her to seek a covenantal action from Boaz, which results in a covenantal kindness being shown to him as well.

What heightens this circle of covenant and hesed is the fact that Naomi had viewed the arrival of Boaz (a potentially willing redeemer) as an act of hesed from the Lord, or as the fulfillment of her desire for the Lord to show hesed to Ruth. Thus we have Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz all performing acts of kindness to each other within the context of the covenant, which in turn makes them all recipients of acts of godly kindness. This is heightened by each person realizing that they are all expressions of God’s covenantal kindness to each other . The circle of covenant and reciprocity involving God and these three exemplifies what a covenant community is designed to achieve. These acts and attributes create a small Zion.

Such reciprocity being noted, we must also remain aware that Ruth is the driving force behind all of this. Ruth is the one who accompanies Naomi. Ruth is the one who gleans and thus initiates contact with Boaz. While Naomi conceives the plan, Ruth is the one who puts it into action. While Boaz is generous and willing, Ruth is the one who approaches him and who asks for redemption. In the story we have three magnanimous actors, but the resolution of everyone’s plights hinges on Ruth. Her virtue, courage, and action are the engine of the events. That being said, it is symbolically significant that with all of her character, charisma, and drive, Ruth must depend upon another to find full resolution. She is in need of redemption herself.

As mentioned above, Boaz is a man who does things the way they should be done. It is this attribute that leads him to inform Ruth that there is a kinsman who is a closer relation and who thus has the first right to be a redeemer. Boaz is unwilling to attempt to circumvent the proper fulfillment of the laws, so he tells Ruth that he will take care of the matter in the morning, but that it will be done in accord with proper practices (see Ruth 3:12–13). He then sends her home with a measure of food for herself and Naomi.

Perhaps one of the greatest compliments that can be paid to Boaz is found in Naomi’s response to how Ruth carried out her plan. When she learns of Boaz’s intent, she tells Ruth, “Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not be in rest, until he have finished the thing this day” (Ruth 3:18). In Naomi’s mind there is no doubt that once Boaz has set his mind to doing this thing, it will be accomplished in short order.

Naomi’s faith is well placed. It also seems clear that the Lord is involved in the matter, for when Boaz goes to the gate in the morning in hopes of resolving this matter with the closer kinsman, “behold, the redeemer of whom Boaz spoke came by” (see Ruth 4:1; author’s translation). Our writer did not intend for us to think of this fortuitous meeting between Boaz and Naomi’s nearest relative as coincidence. Instead, as Boaz set about his task in the early hours, the Lord assisted him by bringing the right person to the right place at that same early time.

The right place to which they went was the city gate. This is where the official business of ancient cities took place. There Boaz gathers ten elders of the city and asks them to sit as witnesses and judges. Boaz informs Naomi’s kinsman of the right to redeem Naomi’s land. Boaz also expresses his own willingness to act as redeemer if the right is refused. The kinsman agrees to redeem the land, and then Boaz makes his move. It is only after the kinsman has agreed to buy land that Boaz informs him that with the land comes the care of both Naomi and Ruth. It is obvious that a levirate marriage would be part of the redemption. This would not be as intimidating if the redemption involved only Naomi. But including Ruth in the matter not only added another woman, it added the care of a child he must sire who would eventually take Naomi’s land inheritance away from his family. Such a redemption would require the kinsman to use his own means to purchase the field, although these means would not go to the children he already had. They would instead go to Ruth’s child, who would be considered of the family of Elimelech. Not wanting to siphon these means away from his own children’s inheritance, the kinsman refuses his right of redemption. He formally does this by his words and by removing his sandal and presenting it to Boaz, demonstrating his unwillingness to perform the duty of the redeemer (see Ruth 4:8). Boaz then claims his right to redemption, being willing to sacrifice his estate in order to support Ruth, Naomi, and their heritage. [32]

Boaz does all of these acts in the most legal and public way possible. The elders who were present recognize the greatness of both Boaz and Ruth and wish for them blessings similar to Rachel, Leah, and Tamar. The Lord immediately blesses Ruth with conception, and all that Naomi or Ruth had ever hoped for is realized. The wording here is significant. In the first chapter, when Naomi had entreated Orpah and Ruth to leave them and return home to look for new husbands, she said, “May the Lord give you that you may find rest, each of you, in the house of her husband” (see Ruth 1:9; author’s translation). The resolution of this verse is phrased thus: “the Lord gave conception to her” (Ruth 4:13; author’s translation). The verb that Naomi uses when she wishes that her daughters-in-law will be given rest is the same verb used when the Lord gives Ruth conception. This is the only time in the Hebrew Bible when that verb is used to describe conception. [33] This parallel verb usage cannot be coincidental. Instead the author is highlighting that Naomi’s wish has been fulfilled. By the grace of God, Ruth has found rest in the house of her new husband. That rest culminates in the conception of a son who will ensure that Ruth will continue to find rest and care throughout her life. Again the shadows of the Messiah are striking.

At this point in the story, Naomi’s friends praise the Lord, almost as a bracket to Naomi’s lament in the first chapter. “Blessed be the Lord, who hath not left thee this day without a redeemer” (see Ruth 4:14; author’s translation). Clearly it is the Lord who has brought about this wonderful resolution. They also recognize how the Lord had worked through Ruth because they sing of how Ruth’s child “will be unto thee a restorer of life, and a nourisher of thine old age; for thy daughter-in-law, who loveth thee, who is better to thee than seven sons, hath borne him” (see Ruth 4:15; author’s translation). These women aptly point out that the Lord had honored his covenantal hesed and had done so by the hesed of others, most especially Ruth. It was through the attempt of many to keep their covenants that God had kept his covenant. Each actor became an expression of God’s efforts to bless his children.

This is most true of Ruth. Part of the resolution of the story is the reward Ruth receives for her efforts, especially for her willingness to care for Naomi despite the eventual price she would have to pay for this generosity. Ruth had lost her own husband, but in the midst of her own pain she was willing the bear the burden of another. In this way she serves as a poignant symbol of the Savior. While Ruth was willing to take Naomi’s suffering upon herself, eventually she did not need to because of the mercy of a redeemer. There would be no such escape for the Savior.

The redemption of Ruth was accomplished because of a number of factors. First, she chose to enter a covenant, both with Naomi and with the Lord. These covenants gave her access to blessings from the Lord and a right to a redeemer. Without this covenant, Ruth was not eligible for redemption. Having made the covenant, Boaz was obligated to redeem her. Second, the Lord built into his plan for Israel a way to deliver those who could not deliver themselves. He provided for a redeemer in order to save those who were put in a position of bondage and destitution. Third, the Lord put in place a righteous man who was both able and willing to serve as Ruth’s redeemer. Thus because of her covenants, God’s plan, and the righteousness of a redeemer, Ruth received redemption for herself and her loved ones. The offspring of this redemption eventually led to Israel’s greatest political king, David, and to Israel’s greatest spiritual deliverer, king, and redeemer, Christ. She who was willing to save, and was in turn saved by another, was ancestress to the Savior. It is not coincidence that our Redeemer descended from a line of redemption. I believe it is fully intentional that the Savior is progeny of a woman who was willing to take upon herself the suffering of another, and a man who was willing to redeem.

The fulfillment of hope for those who were most in need of help speaks of the Hope of Israel. These events happened and are told “in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to [God’s] Son for redemption” (Alma 13:2). In a manner of speaking, Ruth’s redemption is our own. From Ruth we can better understand the Savior, his covenants with us, the rest God has in store for us, and Christ’s glorious redeeming power.

[1] Paula S. Hiebert, “‘Whence Shall Help Come to Me?’ The Biblical Widow,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel , ed. Peggy L. Day (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 134–37.

[2] Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary , ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:559–69; Michael C. Kirwen, African Widows: An Empirical Study of the Problems of Adapting Western Christian Teachings on Marriage to the Leviratic Custom for the Care of Widows in Four Rural African Societies (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), 12.

[3] Millar Burrows, “Levirate Marriage in Israel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 59, no. 1 (March 1940): 23–33.

[4] G. Hoannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament , trans. David Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), s.v. “ ybm; yā b ām; ye b āmâ .”

[5] Hamilton, “Marriage,” 4:559–69.

[6] In light of the Deuteronomy passage only, this may seem as if it were related to hospitality customs of the ancient Near East, namely that the woman removes the shoe, but instead of washing the feet, she spat on the face. But in light of what happens in Ruth, where the person himself removes his shoe and no spitting happens, we must conclude that there is something else afoot here.

[7] Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 56–57; Hamilton, “Marriage,” 561; Millar Burrows, “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research , no. 77 (February 1940): 2–3; and Burrows, “Levirate Marriage,” 31–32.

[8] Kirwen, African Widows , 232, table 39; and Hamilton, “Marriage,” 4:559–69.

[9] Jennifer Clark Lane, “The Lord Will Redeem His People: ‘Adoptive’ Covenant and Redemption in the Old Testament,” in Thy People Shall Be My People and Thy God My God: The 22nd Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 50–51, 57.

[10] Lane, “The Lord Will Redeem,” 53; and Jennifer Clark Lane, “The Redemption of Abraham,” in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant , ed. John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005), 169.

[11] Jennifer Clark Lane, “Not Bondage but Adoption: Adoptive Redemption in the Writings of Paul” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1994), 35; and Robbert Hubbard Jr., “The Go’el in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991): 3.

[12] See also Lane, “Abraham,” 171–72.

[13] Michael S. Moore, “Haggo’el: The Cultural Gyroscope of Ancient Hebrew Society,” Restoration Quarterly 23 (1980): 31.

[14] Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (New York: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 68–89; Raymond Westbrook, “The Law of the Biblical Levirate,” Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquite 24 (1997). Hector Avalos, “Legal and Social Institutions in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East , ed. Jack Sasson (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1995), 1:616, advises that the combination of the two customs here may be a literary contrivance, though he does not espouse this position. Neither do I. See also Millar Burrows, “The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 59, no. 4 (December 1940).

[15] Eryl W. Davies, “Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the gō’ēl,” Vetus Testamentum 33 (April 1983).

[16] William Most, “A Biblical Theology of Covenant in a Covenant Framework,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (January 1967): 1–19; Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 121; Lane, “The Lord Will Redeem,” 54; and Lane, “Abraham,” 169.

[17] Lane, “The Lord Will Redeem,” 54.

[18] Orlo J. Price, “The Biblical Teaching Concerning the Hireling and the Pauper,” Biblical World 29, no. 4 (April 1907): 269–83.

[19] Christoph Auffarth, “Protecting Strangers: Establishing a Fundamental Value in the Religions of the Ancient Near East and Ancient Greece,” Numen 39 (December 1992): 206.

[20] Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1991), 133–38.

[21] Van Houten, The Alien , 155; and Julian L. Greifer, “Attitudes to the Stranger: A Study of the Attitudes of Primitive Society and Early Hebrew,” American Sociological Review 10, no. 6 (December 1945): 739–45.

[22] Van Houten, The Alien , 16.

[23] For further discussion on the term hesed , see Daniel Belnap’s article in this volume on the subject.

[24] Edward F. Campbell Jr., The Anchor Bible: Ruth (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 78, 82.

[25] For an independently reached but similar conclusion, see Campbell, Ruth , 80–82. See also Regina Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991), 90–91.

[26] Amr Al-Azm, “The Importance and Antiquity of Frikkeh: A Simple Snack or a Socioeconomic Indicator of Decline and Prosperity in the Ancient Near East,” in Ethnobotanist of Distant Pasts: Papers in Honour of Gordon Hillman , ed. A.S. Fairbairn and E. Weiss (Oxford: Oxbow Press, forthcoming).

[27] K. Lawson Younger Jr., “Two Comparative Notes on the Book of Ruth,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 26 (1999): 124–25.

[28] For the importance of the event and its applicability to Ruth, see Brian Britt, “Death, Social Conflict, and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5 (2004): 15–16.

[29] See Campbell, Ruth , 130.

[30] Campbell, Ruth , 131, independently reaches the same conclusion.

[31] For more on this term, see Younger, “Two Comparative Notes,” 127–28; and Daniel L. Belnap, “Handmaids of God and Mothers of Kings: A Study of the Terms ‘Gebirah’ and ‘Amah’ as Used in the Hebrew Bible” (Provo, UT: MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 1999).

[32] On the sacrifice of Boaz as opposed to that of Onan (or his lack thereof) in Genesis 38, see R. G. Abrahams, “Marriage and Affinal Roles: Some Aspects of the Levirate,” in The Character of Kinship , ed. Jack Goody (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 167.

[33] I am grateful to Dr. Daniel Belnap for pointing this out.

185 Heber J. Grant Building Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6975

Helpful Links

Religious Education

BYU Studies

Maxwell Institute

Articulos en español

Artigos em português

Connect with Us

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Stay updated with the latest scholarship

Study the Torah with Academic Scholarship

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use

SBL e-journal

Pamela Barmash

Book of Ruth: Achieving Justice Through Narrative

TheTorah.com

APA e-journal

The book of Ruth presents a different model of justice from that afforded by statute, custom, and precedent, one that seeks restorative as opposed to retributive justice. [1]

Prof. Rabbi

Categories:

Book of Ruth: Achieving Justice Through Narrative

Naomi Ruth and the Child Obed. Dalziels' Bible Gallery, 1863–81. Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Back-Story to the Legal Dispute

Many readers of Ruth focus on the initial chapters, on the beautiful statement of Ruth in 1:16-17, or on the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. But the book’s climax is in its conclusion, and the initial chapters serve as a long prelude to the legal procedure that is found in the final chapter. According to the premises of the book, the closest living male relative has the right (or responsibility) to redeem the deceased’s land and to marry his widow, if they had no children, thus establishing the line of the deceased relative on his land.

Presenting a legal procedure as a narrative allows for a model of justice to emerge that is distinct from the paradigm of justice afforded by the formal law of statutes and legal institutions. The narrative unveils the back-story to the legal action of the final chapter: it emphasizes the tragedy that occurred to Naomi, and in so doing sets the scene for her restoration.

A Family Destroyed

During a famine in Judah, Naomi, her husband Elimelech, and their two sons flee to Moab, but this does them no good. The account of this family’s experience in Moab is bleak. Elimelech dies. The names of her sons, Mahlon and Chilion, “illness” and “wasting away,” foretell their deaths, and they do indeed die shortly after their father. Perhaps even bleaker is the fact that they die with no third generation on the horizon. [2]

Naomi’s return to Bethlehem embodies the misery current in her life. The townspeople cannot hold back their consternation and dismay, and Naomi responds by noting that she left full but has returned empty. This is, of course, not completely true: she has returned with her daughter-in-law Ruth, her one source of hope. It is through Ruth that Naomi will be redeemed and her suffering and humiliation relieved.

Reshaping Legal Institutions to Help Widows

Three legal institutions, inheritance, redemption, and levirate, come into play in the book of Ruth. They do not necessarily operate for the benefit of widows, but the narrative reshapes these institutions because its ultimate goal is justice as it should be, the protection and vindication of two widows. It aims for restorative justice, justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused to the injured party and to the community.

Inheritance

Naomi is portrayed as having limited title to her husband’s land (Ruth 4:3), and this is not disputed by any of the participants in the legal case. [3] This contradicts the law of Numbers 27:8-11, which stipulates that the nearest male relative inherits and implies that the widow is bypassed. A number of scholars have argued that the description in the book of Ruth reflects changes in inheritance laws, that a widow was not bypassed and did received (part of) her husband’s estate. [4]

Additional evidence for widows inheriting is found in the apocryphal book of Judith, whose title character is portrayed as very wealthy. Moreover, the legal archive of Babatha, contains documents dating from the time of Bar-Kochba in which a woman files many lawsuits for control of her husband’s estate. [5]

Because Naomi is depicted as having this (limited) title to the land, she can use it to gain financial security by taking advantage of the institution of redemption, over which Boaz and the nearest kinsman contend.

The institution of redemption provided for the nearest male relative to act on behalf of a person who found himself/herself in constrained economic circumstances. He was responsible to reclaim land sold by a member of his extended family (Lev 25:25; Jer 32:7-8) and to buy the freedom of a relative sold into slavery (Lev 25:47-49). In either case, he did not obtain title to the land but the relative on whose behalf he operated gained title to the land. [6]

If the narrative of the book of Ruth were to have followed the law of Numbers 27, the nearest kinsman or Boaz would have inherited the property (because the widow did not inherit). However, according the restorative model of justice the narrative offers, the nearest kinsman or Boaz must serve as redeemer, not as heir. The property will not be theirs.

Levirate ( Yibbum )

The narrative is also trying to reshape the law of yibbum or “levirate marriage” (from the Latin word levir , meaning “husband’s brother”), which stipulates that the deceased husband’s brother, according to Deuteronomy 25:5-10, or even the deceased’s father, according to Genesis 38. If levirate followed these rules, Ruth and Naomi would be out of luck. But the narrative interconnects the institutions of inheritance, redemption, and levirate so that one widow (Naomi) holds title to land and a redeemer redeems the land from her and marries the widow of child-bearing age (Ruth).

The narrative has created a situation in which levirate does not apply, according to statute, but where it should apply. In the case of a widow with no living brothers-in-law or father-in-law, the levirate marriage should take place with more distant relatives because levirate provides security for widows, according to the narrative. Widows are portrayed as eagerly pursuing levirate but men are hesitant and see only the harm it will do to their estates. [7]

The one man who is an exception to this is not Naomi’s unnamed closest relative but the more distant relative, Boaz, and while the reason given for levirate is “to perpetuate a man’s name,” the line of descent in 4:18-22 mentions Boaz, not Ruth’s deceased husband, Machlon.

Who Will Help Naomi?

The book concludes with Naomi’s restoration. She is returned to the position she enjoyed at the beginning: she is portrayed as the mother, even though she is the grandmother. The chorus of townspeople that decried her impoverished and tragic position now affirm her new good fortune. The women celebrate the birth and, unusually, they name the child, who must have been the subject of much discussion among them (Ruth 4:14-17). Naomi lost her sons, but the women proclaim that Ruth is better than seven sons. The grandson himself is termed a redeemer (גואל, 4:14), a person whom Naomi was seeking throughout the story, and is called a משיב נפש, “the one who restores to life” (4:15).

The narrative has lured us into the back-story, the hurt and the humiliation—the need for Naomi to be “redeemed.” It has revealed what law cannot, the internal misery and agony, and in so doing, it shapes the characters and plot so that Naomi’s wounds will be healed and she will be restored to her previous prosperity and good standing. The “hero” will be the man who steps up and “redeems” that family by, literally, redeeming Elimelech’s land and his line.

As we learn in the 3 rd and 4 th chapters of the book, Naomi’s nearest kinsman should have been the one to help her, but the narrative shows that at times the person who has the duty to help shirks his responsibility. He is the one who should have taken the initiative to help her, and we should have heard about him earlier. He is portrayed as reluctant when Boaz manipulates him into court, revealing why Naomi did not even bother to contact him. The turn of events reflects just how difficult it is to make those with legal responsibilities act on and fulfill those responsibilities. The narrative demonstrates the flaw in the system: the nearest kinsman should have been the one Naomi calls upon, but she gives up on him before she even starts.

A Laborious Legal Process

The way to the resolution of the legal issues in the narrative is depicted as laborious. Nothing is straightforward, nothing is easy. From the time Boaz is first mentioned in the text, forty-seven verses elapse before the successful conclusion to the legal process is announced, before Boaz can announce that he has acquired the estates of Naomi’s dead husband and sons (Ruth 2:2 – 4:9). This delay signals how convoluted the legal process was perceived to be. Moreover, various episodes end in tension, reflecting the vagaries of human behavior: The harvest ends with Naomi and Ruth still waiting for an advocate (2:23), and even after Ruth recounts to Naomi the night encounter with Boaz (3:16-18), we still wonder how it will be resolved in the morning. The path toward resolving legal matters can be a labyrinth.

A bereft widow might just find herself forlorn, but the narrative shows that justice can be achieved when individuals go beyond the confines of normal activity, as Ruth does when she creeps up next to Boaz in the night and lays down next to him, whether she is intimate with him or just lying there suggestively.

Initially, Boaz’s interest is limited to helping Ruth glean more stalks of grain and making sure that gleaning is not unpleasant for her (2:14-16). Just as the unnamed closest relative does, Boaz lets the matter slide, and much time passes: the wheat and barley harvests are at their end without Boaz assuming a legal role or pushing the closest relative to do so (as he will do later in the story). Only when Ruth makes her extraordinary appeal with its sexual overtones does the narrative portray Boaz as newly attentive to Ruth and Naomi in ways both large and small. He promises to resolve the problem that very morning, and he makes sure not to send Ruth back to Naomi empty-handed. Boaz’s inaction was reversed by Ruth’s exceptional act.

Protecting Widows: How Narrative Helps Law to Be More Just

The book of Ruth has transcended the confines of statutes, customs, and norms in order to portray justice and legal process as they ought to be. The focus is on the suffering parties and restorative justice, not the delinquent party and retributive justice. The book could have been devoted to the nearest kinsman and the need for him to be punished; instead he remains nameless and is at best a tertiary character in the story. The ultimate goal is to protect the two widows and provide them with justice.

The reality of the negligent relative is made public, the grievance of the injured parties is acknowledged, and Naomi and Ruth are granted the opportunity to feel relief. The narrative has furnished a remedy for the unquantifiable and intangible harm, the despair, the grief, not just for the financial loss. It has sought justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused to the injured parties and has provided a cure for healing their spirit.

Narrative vs. Law

Narratives, like that of the book of Ruth, unveil the disorderly and unpredictable side of life. They shed light on the emotional texture and moral dimensions that law strains to recognize and handle. And although biblical narrative utilizes conventions, like type-scenes and typical characters, it seeks to transcend them in order to open vistas into human nature. By contrast, law fashioned by statute and custom tries to fit the multiplicity of human actions into a limited set of categories. It attempts to organize human behavior and tries to provide predictable results. It reduces the complexity of human actions and makes them fit patterns, principles, and remedies. Law aspires to the predictable, to expected results and outcomes, to known cases and expected penalties.

By its very nature, narrative can offer a different model of justice emerge that is distinct from the paradigm of justice afforded by the formal law of statutes and legal institutions. [8] It can overcome the gap between what is prescribed by statute and custom and what is just. It can go beyond the accepted pathways of the law to find a better remedy to a legal problem. The narrative is a portrayal of justice as it should be.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

June 7, 2016

Last Updated

March 25, 2024

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

[1] This devar Torah is based on my essay, “Achieving Justice Through Narrative in the Hebrew Bible: The Limitations of Law in the Legal Potential of Literature,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeshichte 20 (2014):181-199.

[2] Even though it cannot be assumed that the sons married immediately upon their arrival in Moab, still the narrative notes that the sons lived in Moab for ten years. Underlining the bleakness of the situation is the fact that even the usual explanation for the lack of children, the barrenness of the women, is omitted.

[3] Other cultures have divided rights to use land in particular ways, and different people may hold different kinds of titles to the same piece of land. Max Gluckman, The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 75-112.

[4] It is not clear whether this means that there has been a change from the statute in Numbers or that Numbers postdated Ruth. Even if Numbers is earlier (and the evidence from the development of the Hebrew language is that Numbers is earlier than Ruth because it does not reflect the Hebrew of the Second Temple period), the rule in Numbers may be ideal, as other parts of Priestly legislation, and may not reflect the reality of the legal system of Ancient Israel.

[5] D.R.G. Beattie, “The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Legal Practice,” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974), 256; F.S. Frick, “Widows in the Hebrew Bible: A Transactional Approach,” in A. Brenner, A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1974), 256.

[6] The case of Jer 32:7-8 is unusual in that Jeremiah gained title to the land because he had both the right of inheritance and the right of redemption: in the end, he would have gained the title to the land. Also in some cases, the redeemer purchased the property directly from the relative forced to sell it without the intermediate sale to a non-relative (Jer 32:7-8).

[7] This is most likely because the child of this union will be part of the deceased’s line, but the redeemer has to work the land, cutting into the investment in his own land and his “own” sons’ inheritance; see Dvora E. Weisberg, “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate in the Bible and Ancient Israel,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004): 405.

[8] My analysis of the differences between formal law and narrative was inspired by Thane Rosenbaum, The Myth of Moral Justice (New York: Harper, 2004). A classic overview of theories of justice may be found in Michael Sandel, Justice : what’s the right thing to do? ( New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

Prof. Rabbi Pamela Barmash is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Biblical Hebrew at Washington University in St. Louis. She holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University, a B.A. from Yale University, and rabbinic ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary. She is the author of The Laws of Hammurabi: At the Confluence of Royal and Scribal Traditions (Oxford 2020) and Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge 2005). She is the co-editor of the Exodus: Echoes and Reverberations in the Jewish Experience, and the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law. She is the editor of the scholarly journal Hebrew Studies, and she serves as co-chair of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly and as a dayyan on the Joint Beit Din of the Conservative/Masorti movement.

The Book of Ruth

56 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 1-3

Chapters 4-6

Chapters 7-9

Chapters 10-12

Chapters 13-15

Chapters 16-18

Chapters 19-21

Character Analysis

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Featured Collections

Books & Literature

View Collection

Coming-of-Age Journeys

Historical Fiction

Popular Book Club Picks

Sexual Harassment & Violence

Ruth: A Story of Lovingkindness

The book of Ruth is a story of love, faithfulness, and restoration that ultimately points us to God’s plan of redemption in Christ.

In order to declare the whole counsel of God it’s important that we not only preach verse by verse through books of the Bible but that we actually get to as many books of the Bible as we can! To this end, on Sunday, July 25th, we will be taking a short, five-week break from our sermon series through Romans to study the book of Ruth. By breaking up Romans (NT letter) with Ruth (OT narrative) we can work towards helping our church maintain a balanced diet of hearing sermons from both Old and New Testaments which also cover the various types of literature found in Scripture.

The book of Ruth is a beautifully and written story of love, faithfulness, and restoration that ultimately points us to God’s purposes of redemption in Christ. It serves as a hinge in the story of Israel, marking the transition from the age of judges to the age of kings, and is the only book in the Old Testament named after a non-Israelite. Rather than focusing on prophets, priests, and kings, it follows the ordinary lives of a handful of ordinary characters: Naomi, the Moabite Ruth, and Boaz. By studying this concise and masterfully crafted story we not only learn about Israel’s history, the lineage of David and Israel’s Messiah, but we also discover many of the themes that get at the heart of Old Testament and the story of redemption.

What does Ruth teach us about God?

First, Ruth puts the providence of God on full display. While there are no burning bushes, plagues, or pillars of fire, we see God involved in the ordinary details of the everyday lives of individuals and how he uses these ordinary people and ordinary events to fulfill his covenant promises. It shows how God even makes himself known to his people through famine, death, barrenness, and exile.

Second, Ruth highlights the characteristic of God summed up by the Hebrew word hesed (Ruth 1:8; 2:20). This word has been translated as the lovingkindness, covenant loyalty, graciousness, mercy, goodness, and steadfast love of God because there is no single English word that can capture all that it entails. Lutheran scholar, Chad Bird, sums it up quite well :

Chesed is truly untranslatable love. No-holds-barred mercy. Covenant faithfulness even if it costs God the lifeblood of his beloved Son. Chesed is the beating heart of God in cruciform display. The kind of love that chases us to the ends of the earth, picks us up, places us atop divine shoulders, and dances all the way home. There really is only one word that encompasses the totality of what chesed is—Christ himself. He is the chesed of the Father made flesh.

It’s the hesed of God that causes him to bring Naomi, as hopeless and bitter as she may have become, from emptiness to fullness. It’s God’s steadfast love to his people that causes him to visit them with food, despite their sin and rebellion that likely brought about the famine (Ruth 1:1, 6). It’s God’s loyalty and kindness that welcomes Ruth, a Moabite, under his wings and gives her refuge (2:12). And it’s God’s hesed that ultimately provides his people, despite their constant idolatry and rebellion, a Shepherd-King who is greater than David (Ruth 4:18-20; Matt. 1:1-17)

What does Ruth teach us about Jesus?

Third, Ruth teaches us about the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the end of the story we find that Boaz married Ruth to redeem the lineage of Elimelech and they become part of the lineage of Jesus Christ. But that’s not the only connection to Jesus. What we discover is that Jesus is the true and greater Boaz, who redeems people of God. Like Ruth, we come to Jesus with nothing to offer, hungry, homeless, estranged, and in need of aid. Jesus, like Boaz, shows us the hesed of God by redeeming and providing for us. Through his substitutionary death on the cross for our sins, we come to find refuge under his wings, we find favor in his eyes, we sit at his table, and we eat until we are satisfied (Ruth 2:10-14).

What does Ruth teach us about the people of God?

While Ruth is ultimately about God, it also gives us a remarkable picture of the church. In every chapter we meet characters who demonstrate the hesed of God, who go over and beyond to show kindness, faithfulness, and loyalty to others. In his commentary on Ruth, Daniel Block summarizes it this way:

In stark contrast to the Book of Judges, where many of the major characters are spiritually compromising at best and pagan in outlook and conduct at worst, every person in this story is a decent person; they are presented as authentic people of faith. Although ḥesed is only attributed explicitly to Ruth (3:10), the kindness, goodness, loyalty, and faithfulness that are characteristic of God are true of his people. Indeed, ranking just below the narrator’s concern to essay God’s providential care and direction of history is his goal of describing what ḥesed looks like in the context of personal, family, and communal life.

While the world looks more like the book of Judges, with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25), the church is called follow the examples of the characters in the book of Ruth, who constantly show loyalty and lovingkindness to one another. As we we seek to demonstrate the hesed of God we will shine like stars in an increasingly dark, hostile, and polarizing world.

Recommended Resources
Message of Ruth: The Wings of Refuge , Bible Speaks Today commentary series, David Atkinson
From Famine to Fullness: The Gospel According to Ruth , by Dean R. Ulrich
Unceasing Kindness: A Biblical Theology of Ruth , Vol. 41 (New Studies in Biblical Theology), Peter Lau and Gregory Goswell
Overview of Ruth at BibleProject.com

Mitch Bedzyk - Pastor at Emmanuel Community Church

Mitch Bedzyk serves as a pastor Emmanuel Community Church, overseeing music and Sunday Classes. He received his Master of Theological Studies from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and works in IT for the NY Office of Mental Health. He and his wife, Sarah, have five children: Kya, Khalli, Oliver, Amelia, and Micah. In his spare time he enjoys reading, coffee, guitar, being an MLS fanatic and playing fantasy soccer.

Implications of the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 for Biblical Prophecy

AD 70 as a Sign of “The End”

The Final Verdict: Judgment for Israel and Vindication for Jesus

Judgment on God’s House: A Central Theme of the Prophets

The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Vindication of Jesus

More resources.

Church Statements
Reading List

For His Renown

That the glory of the Lord might cover the dry land as the waters cover the sea

The Best Essay I’ve Ever Read on the Book of Ruth

Peter Leithart, “ When Gentile Meets Jew: A Christian Reading of Ruth and the Hebrew Scriptures ,” Touchstone , May 2009, 20–24.

Some highlights:

Christological reading that integrates the detailed studies of Jewish scholars has the potential to address some of the complaints against the historical practice of typology. Taking cues from Luke 24 , typological interpretation has traditionally plundered the Old Testament for shadowy types of Jesus. This is consistent with the New Testament’s Christological use of the Old: Jesus is the Seed of Abraham , Melchizedek, Moses, David, the sage-king Solomon, Elisha, a prophet like Jeremiah, and, above all, the Last Adam. What traditional typology has often missed, however, is the complexity of these Old Testament types. Each type is itself a rich tapestry of antitypes. Jesus is David, but David himself is Adam, Jacob, Moses, and Israel. According to the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7), for example, David’s sons are sons of Yahweh; but Yahweh already has a son, Israel. Thus, David’s sons personify Israel, and a Davidic Christology is at the same time an Israel Christology. To say that Jesus is the Son of David seems to give us only a skeletal royal Christology, but once we see that the figure of David is elaborated by overt or implicit typological links with earlier figures, we begin to put flesh on the bones. Jesus is not the “second Adam,” as if history skipped from Eden to Golgotha without anything intervening. Jesus is the Last Adam, the last of a series of increasingly complex Adam figures, and as such He embodies, and surpasses, them all.

At first, Ruth seems unpromising territory for a Christian interpreter. Ruth herself is mentioned exactly once in the New Testament, on page 1, in the genealogy that begins Matthew’s Gospel (1:5). After that, she’s ignored. Boaz gets (slightly) more exposure, gaining a place in Luke’s genealogy as well as Matthew’s (3:32). Beyond that, there are no explicit references to Ruth, nor does the New Testament contain any obvious allusions to Ruth’s story.

——–

Moab is triply disqualified from association with Israel. Moab himself was the son of the incestuous daughter of Lot (Gen. 19); at Baal-Peor, Balaam unleashed the daughters of Moab into the camp of Israel to seduce Israelite men to fornication and idolatry, provoking Yahweh to bring down a plague that stopped only when Phinehas impaled a fornicating couple with his spear (Num. 25); and when Israel first passed through Moabite territory, the Moabites refused to offer bread and water (Num. 22:1–6; Deut. 23:4), but instead hired Balaam to spout imprecations.

Ruth the Anti-Type Her redemption of the Moabite reputation has a double twist. When she sneaks onto the threshing floor the night after the harvest festival to find Boaz—a man old enough to call her “my daughter” (Ruth 3:10)—she is every inch the Moabitess. Like Lot’s daughters, she appears to be approaching a wine-filled “father” seeking a son; like the Moabite women who seduced Israel, she seems to be preying on an unsuspecting Israelite man, and we almost expect a Phinehas to loom up, spear poised. Yet this Moabitess has already pledged herself to the Israelite widow, and all her Moabitish actions are acts of hesed (cf. 3:10). She does want a son from Boaz, but she acts out of loyalty to Naomi. Unlike her Moabite forebears who refused to bring food to Israel, Ruth is an inexhaustible source of bread for Naomi. Every time she leaves the city, she returns with baskets full of grain (2:17–18; 3:15, 17). This Gentile woman fills the empty Naomi (2:18). Ruth is the antitype of Lot’s daughters and of the Moabite women at Baal Peor— anti -type because she plays against type, fulfilling the earlier history of Moab by reversing it. In a more straightforward sense, she is an antitype of Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah who dressed herself as a prostitute and seduced her father-in-law in order to gain a son for her dead husband (Gen. 38). Both Tamar and Ruth dress up and seductively approach a father figure to get a son, and, as the mother of Perez and Zerah, Tamar is in the same Davidic genealogy as Ruth. Judah had other sons, but Perez and Zerah, sons of incest, are the ones that figure in all the royal genealogies, all the way to Jesus. Tamar is the savior of Judah’s seed, and so is Ruth.

On Boaz “The Prototype”:

As he provides food for the hungry, and permanent land for Elimelech’s widow, he plays the part of Moses and Joshua. Reversing the inverted exodus at the beginning of Ruth, Boaz leads Ruth, and through her Naomi, out of the wasteland into a land of barley, wheat, and wine. In this respect, Boaz also serves as a prototype of the future kings of Israel, who, according to Psalm 72, render justice to the poor and satisfy the needy. Boaz is Moses-shaped, and David, Solomon, and every faithful king of Judah is a Boaz. More fundamentally, Boaz is an Adam. This is most striking in the threshing-floor scene in Ruth 3, when Boaz awakes from a deep sleep astonished to find a woman at his feet. He is an improved Adam, who feeds Ruth without seizing forbidden fruit, who protects his bride from want, who fathers the seed that produce the seed who will crush the serpent’s head. Boaz is Adam, Moses, and Joshua. By conforming to the pattern of Boaz, David also becomes a composite of these types, and as Son of David, Jesus is all this and more. To say that Jesus is a greater Boaz doesn’t strike a note; it strikes a chord.

The typological redemption of Ruth follows this pattern: Naomi, the Jewish widow, is bereft; the Gentile daughter Ruth joins her; Naomi gets a redeemer when Boaz attaches himself to Ruth. The pattern is not “salvation, then incorporation of Gentiles” but “incorporation of Gentiles, then salvation.”

Leithart closes with this quote from de Lubac:

Scripture is like the world: “undecipherable in its fullness and in the multiplicity of its meanings.” [It is] a deep forest, with innumerable branches, “an infinite forest of meanings”: the more involved one gets in it, the more one discovers that it is impossible to explore it right to its end. It is a table arranged by Wisdom, laden with food, where the unfathomable divinity of the Savior is itself offered as nourishment to all. Treasure of the Holy Spirit, whose riches are as infinite as himself. True labyrinth. Deep heavens, unfathomable abyss. Vast sea, where there is endless voyaging “with all sails set.” Ocean of mystery.

Read the whole thing .

What the Book of Ruth Teaches Us About God’s Hesed Love

February 21, 2022 | by Shanté Grossett O'Neal Bible Study

When we think about love, we often think about romantic love between a man and a woman. However, the story of Ruth and Naomi highlights the love, faithfulness, and commitment between daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law. The book of Ruth takes place during the period of the Judges, a time of sin, turmoil, and hardship for Israel. While we often think of the book as a romance between Ruth and Boaz, the story really focuses on Ruth and Naomi. After settling in Moab with her husband and sons, Naomi loses everything and is left with her daughter-in-law, Ruth. We learn a lot about God’s hesed towards his people through Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz who demonstrated incredible faithfulness to God and each other in a time of unfaithfulness and sin in Israel’s history. Keep reading to learn more about God’s hesed love , how it is demonstrated in the book of Ruth, and how we can in turn show this kind of love to others.

two women making a heart with their hands with text overlay, What the Book of Ruth Teaches Us About God's Hesed Love. The story of Ruth and Naomi highlights love, faithfulness, and commitment."

What is Hesed?

Hesed is an interesting word. It does not easily translate into English and is often rendered in different ways in various English translations. For example, the English Standard Version often translates it as favor or steadfast love. On the other hand, the King James Version may translate it as mercy or kindness.

When we think of God’s hesed, the first word that may come to mind is love. However, hesed is actually a little more specific than the English word love. It can be translated as kindness, loyalty, and goodness.

One key thing you should know about hesed is that it is much more than a feeling. It carries the idea of commitment, and it sometimes speaks of the undeserved mercy or grace one receives from another.

For example, in Genesis 39:21, God shows hesed to Joseph and allows the prison guard to act kindly towards him:

But the LORD was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. Genesis 39:21 ESV

And in 2 Samuel 9:7, David shows hesed towards Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s grandson in return for Jonathan’s prior kindness to David in protecting him from Saul:

And David said to him, “Do not fear, for I will show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan, and I will restore to you all the land of Saul your father, and you shall eat at my table always.” 2 Samuel 9:7 ESV

Lastly, in 1 Chronicles 16:34, David praises God for his hesed.

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever! 1 Chronicles 16:34 ESV

As you can see, God shows hesed to individuals, individuals show hesed towards each other, and God shows hesed towards entire groups of people.

Naomi and Ruth: What was it like for widows and orphans living in Israel?

Now back to Ruth and Naomi. Earlier I mentioned that Naomi lost everything after moving to Moab with her husband and two sons. They all passed away and she became a widow. Naomi had two daughters-in-law and both were left widows as well.

After deciding to return to Bethlehem, Naomi urged her daughters-in-law to return to their home. She knew they would be better off if they did. One daughter-in-law returned home but Ruth decided to stay. The two women were incredibly vulnerable as they were both widows living in Israel during the tumultuous period of the Judges.

In a book looking at the history of Widowhood, Karel Van Der Toorn discusses the underprivileged position of widows in ancient Israel:

It is true that her underprivileged position elicited commiseration and pity; yet she was also slightly ridiculous. By some people she was not merely mocked at but even abused. (Karel Van Der Toorn, Between Poverty and the Pyre : Moments in the History of Widowhood , edited by Jan Bremmer, and Den Bosch, Lourens Van, Taylor & Francis Group, 1995.)

The reason why there were so many laws in the Old Testament about helping and supporting widows is because to be a widow in Israel meant that you were without protection and provision.

Simply put, Naomi and Ruth were walking into an extremely difficult situation. All the men in the family were gone and they were left alone. They had no heir to carry on the family so after they passed away, the family would vanish too.

However, something really wonderful happens in Ruth and God provides for both of these women in ways that they least expected it. Hint: he did it through the hesed of ordinary people.

How do we see Hesed in the book of Ruth?

We see God’s hesed on display in the book of Ruth through the loyalty and faithfulness of the individuals in the story.

Naomi and Ruth

After Naomi urged Ruth and Orpah to return to their homes, this is what Ruth says:

But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” Ruth 1:16-17 ESV

I want to make it clear that there was nothing in it for Ruth. In fact, she was walking into a life of potential hardship. There was a famine in Bethlehem-Judah, she was a widow, and she was a foreigner. Not to mention, she was from Moab, and the Israelites and the Moabites didn’t get along very well.

So what made Ruth decide to stay with Naomi? Hesed. She was committed to her mother-in-law and had no intention of leaving her behind.

Later on in the book, Naomi shows hesed to Ruth by essentially putting her in the path of her relative, Boaz. As a young widow, Ruth had more of an opportunity to be remarried and have children than Naomi did. Naomi knew that a marriage to Boaz would help Ruth financially and help her have the children she desired (See Ruth 3:1-5).

Boaz and Ruth

Next, Boaz shows great hesed towards Ruth:

Then Boaz said to Ruth, “Now, listen, my daughter, do not go to glean in another field or leave this one, but keep close to my young women. Let your eyes be on the field that they are reaping, and go after them… Ruth 2:8-9a ESV

After leaving Moab, Naomi and Ruth returned to Bethlehem right in time for the barley harvest. Ruth ended up gleaning in Boaz’s field. Now, according to the law in Leviticus, landowners were required to leave enough grain for those who were less fortunate (Leviticus 23:22, Leviticus 19:9-10).

Boaz actually went above and beyond this and instructed his servants to leave extra wheat in the field just so that Ruth could have an abundance of grain! (Ruth 2:15-16)

Why did Boaz show such kindness to Ruth? Because of her kindness to her mother-in-law, Naomi.

But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. The LORD repay you for what you have done, and a full reward be given you by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge!” Ruth 2:11-12 ESV

Boaz marries Ruth

Eventually, Boaz and Ruth get married. It’s not exactly a fairytale marriage. Let me explain why.

There was a practice known as levirate marriage in Ancient Israel. Levirate marriage was a means of providing an heir for a family after a man died without a male child. The man’s brother would marry his widow and their child would become the legal heir of the deceased man.

There’s another concept known as redemption that we see in Ruth as well. Unfortunately, women could not own property and since all the men in the immediate family had passed away, the land Naomi’s husband owned would have been lost.

Boaz not only married Ruth, he also acted as her “kinsman-redeemer” and redeemed the inheritance she would have lost.

As a result, Ruth and Naomi had greater financial stability and potential for an heir to continue the legacy of their family.

God and Ruth/Naomi

So far in this story, we see many examples of how people have shown hesed to each other. However, I want to point out how God shows hesed towards two marginalized women, Ruth and Naomi.

So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son…Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi. ” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. Ruth 4:13, 16-17 ESV

At the end of the story, Ruth gives birth to a son named Obed. Notice the line about the women of the neighborhood. Although Obed was Ruth’s son, they exclaimed that a son was born to Naomi.

This is significant because an heir provided a lot of protection and security for women. Obed’s birth meant that Naomi would have someone to care for her when she was no longer able to care for herself. Additionally, it meant that the family legacy would not stop even though her sons were gone. The birth of Obed was like a new son being born to Naomi.

God and Israel… and eventually the whole world

Let’s look at the last few verses of chapter four:

Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David. Ruth 4:18-22 ESV

Through two struggling widows — one who was a Gentile and came from a nation Israel despised, God paved the way for Israel to receive a king after his own heart. Obed was an ancestor of king David.

But beyond this, Obed and David were both ancestors of Jesus, our Messiah and Savior.

What’s the point? Some takeaways to consider

There are a few key points I want to share from the story of Ruth. It teaches us that…

God provides for those with nothing
God cares for the broken and hurting
God uses ordinary people as a conduit of his blessing
God is faithful to do what he says he will do

In the book of Ruth, we see God’s faithfulness most clearly through individuals’ kindness towards each other. As I mentioned in the beginning, we often think of love as a romantic connection between two people. However, love is action-based. We are called to love others even when we don’t feel like it and even when there’s nothing in it for ourselves.

In closing, I want to leave you with a line from John’s Gospel:

By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. John 13:35 ESV

Consider showing kindness to someone today. You never know how much they might need it. And you never know how your kindness can help fulfill God’s plan for their life. Let’s be like Ruth, more concerned with how we can support our loved ones than we are about receiving from them. Finally, may our love be more than just words. May it be visible in our actions too.

Loved the article? Sign up for the newsletter for more!

Reader interactions, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

February 21, 2022 at 1:27 pm

This was an absolute blessing. I believe that the Lord lead me here and used this as a sign to show me His hesed love for me and I feel lead to show hesed love to others. Thank you for being obedient to the Lord and having the courage and strength to share what the Lord put upon your heart. I pray God will continue to bless you with strength, wisdom and protection as well as provision. I feel inspired to add: “may the Lord bless you and keep you, may His face shine upon you and may He be gracious to you.”

February 21, 2022 at 1:29 pm

Thank you Kierra! I really appreciate your kind words and I’m so glad the article was a blessing to you. Have a wonderful day and may God bless you as well!

Outline of the Book of Ruth: Basic & Detailed Outlines

Categories Bible Outlines , Bible Study Topics , Featured

In this article, we explore an outline of the book of Ruth that. One will be a basic outline to help you get a good overview while the other will be more detailed to help you study the book of Ruth.

I have been creating a series of Bible outlines and today we will look at Ruth!

Using an outline when reading or studying the book of Ruth can be very helpful in understanding and comprehending the text. An outline will provide you with a basic structure of the book, as well as help you to see how each section connects to the next and how the story progresses. Additionally, an outline can help you to focus on specific sections or topics that you may want to study in more depth.

Alright, now that we have that covered let’s dig into some background fact!

Background Facts About The Book Of Ruth

The book of Ruth is one of the Bible’s most inspiring accounts of faithfulness, love, and God’s providence. It tells the story of a young woman named Ruth who leaves everything she knows to follow her mother-in-law, Naomi, back to Naomi’s homeland. Along the way, Ruth demonstrates her loyalty and devotion to Naomi and ultimately comes to know the God of Israel. The book culminates with Ruth’s marriage to Boaz, a wealthy landowner, and the birth of their son, Obed.

The Author of Ruth

The author of Ruth is unknown. According to Jewish tradition and history they attribute it to the prophet Samuel. But there is nothing in the book that would state this.

The Date or Timeline

In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab.- Ruth 1:1

It is said that the book of Ruth takes place somewhere during the times of the Judges (approximately 1350 B.C).

Key People in the Book of Ruth

Let’s take a look at some of the key characters in Ruth’s book:

Naomi – Ruth’s mother-in-law. She is a woman who has lost her husband and two sons.

Ruth – Naomi’s daughter-in-law. She is a Moabite woman who leaves everything she knows to follow Naomi back to Israel.

Boaz – Ruth’s husband. He is a wealthy landowner who shows great kindness to Ruth.

Obed – Ruth and Boaz’s son. He is the grandfather of King David.

READ THE BOOK OF RUTH HERE: NIV – NKJV – AMP

Basic Outline of the Book of Ruth

1. Naomi loses her family (her husband, and two sons) ( 1:1-5 )

2. Naomi and Ruth return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)

3. Ruth meets Boaz (2:1-3:18)

4. Boaz redeems Ruth (4:1-12)

5. The lineage of David is established through Ruth and Boaz’s son, Obed (4:13-22)

Detailed Outline of Ruth

A. Famine and tragedy over take Namoi’s house

A. Ruth commits herself to Naomi while Orpha goes back home ( 1:6-18 )

B. Naomi’s returns home to Bethlehem ( 1:19-22 )

A. Ruth starts working in the field ( 2:1-7 )

B. Ruth meets Boaz ( 2:8-16 )

C. Ruth returns to Naomi and tells her about Boaz ( 2:17-23 )

D. Naomi give Ruth advice about Boaz ( 3:1-5 )

E. Ruth at the threshing floor with Boaz ( 3:7-18 )

F. Boaz’ promises to redeem Ruth ( 3:6-15 )

G. Ruth tells Naomi all that happened ( 3:14-18 )

A. A close relative chooses not to redeem Ruth ( 4:1-6 )

B. Boaz and Ruth marry ( 4:7-12 )

A. The Genealogy of David ( 4:18-22 )

The outline of the book of Ruth is a helpful tool when studying this inspiring biblical account of faithfulness, love, and God’s providence. The key people in the story, as well as the basic timeline and key events, are all highlighted in this outline which can help you to better understand and comprehend the text. I hope you have enjoyed this and that it has stirred your hunger to go deeper into God’s Word.

More On The Book Of Ruth

Are you ready to learn more about the book of Ruth? Great news! I’ve been diving deep into this incredible book and have some articles you might enjoy.

The Book of Ruth

Uncovering the Mystery of Ruth in the Bible: Who Was She Really?

Discover 5 Powerful Characteristics Of Boaz In The Bible

5 Spiritual Lessons from the Book of Ruth

7 Inspiring Characteristics of Ruth in the Bible

Melissa is a passionate minister, speaker and an ongoing learner of the Bible. She has been involved in church and vocational ministry for over 18 years. And is the founder of Think About Such Things. She has the heart to equip the saints by helping them get into the Word of God and fall more in love with Jesus. She also enjoys family, cooking, and reading.

She has spoken in churches in California, Oregon, Texas, and Mexico and has been featured in Guidepost Magazine and All Recipes Magazine. Read More…

I accept the Privacy Policy

Share full article

Supported by

Africa’s Youngest President Takes Office, Promising ‘Systemic Change’

Senegal’s new president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, took the oath of office in Tuesday’s ceremony. Close behind him sat the popular opposition leader who had clinched the win.

Bassirou Diomaye Faye raises his right hand to take the oath of office, while family and dignitaries sit behind him in a conference center.

By Ruth Maclean

Reporting from Diamniadio, Senegal.

Still reeling from a whirlwind campaign, young people in Senegal threw jackets over their worn election T-shirts on Tuesday to attend the inauguration of an opposition politician who went from political prisoner to president in less than three weeks.

Their new leader, Bassirou Diomaye Faye — at 44, Africa’s youngest elected president — took the oath of office promising “systemic change,” and paying homage to the many people killed, injured, and imprisoned in the yearslong lead-up to the West African country’s election.

“I will always keep in mind the heavy sacrifices made so as to never disappoint you,” Mr. Faye said, addressing a vast auditorium in which African heads of state and dignitaries sat at the front. From the back, hundreds of supporters of Mr. Faye and his powerful backer, the opposition leader Ousmane Sonko, shouted for joy.

Hours later, Mr. Faye appointed Mr. Sonko prime minister in the new government, according to a post on the president’s official account on X.

It was the culmination of months of drama, after the former president, Macky Sall, canceled the election with just weeks to go, citing irregularities at the constitutional council — and then, under intense domestic and international pressure, agreed to hold it after all.

Mr. Sall’s handpicked candidate was resoundingly beaten by Mr. Faye, a tax inspector and political rookie who got more than 54 percent of the vote, despite having only 10 days of freedom in which to campaign . He had been jailed on charges of defamation and contempt of court, and was awaiting trial when Mr. Sall announced the adoption of an amnesty law and was released.

“You’re Senegal’s uncontested and dazzling choice,” said the president of the constitutional council, Mamadou Badio Camara, presiding over the inauguration.

But Mr. Faye was not the only politician that Senegal had effectively endorsed. Mr. Sonko, the man whose support helped get Mr. Faye elected, was sitting in the second row.

“Thank you, Sonko, thank you,” yelled his supporters at key moments in Tuesday’s ceremony.

Mr. Sonko, until now Senegal’s foremost opposition leader, was also in jail until three weeks ago, barred from running for president himself after convictions on charges of defamation and “corruption of youth” in relation to accusations brought by a young massage parlor employee .

When he was released, he immediately went on the campaign trail with Mr. Faye, telling his supporters that a vote for Mr. Faye was a vote for him.

Mr. Faye made no mention in his speech of Mr. Sonko, who cut a low profile in a black hat and tunic. But Mr. Sonko was a constant presence. He hobnobbed with the African presidents who waited for the ceremony to begin in an antechamber of a conference center in Diamniadio, a new city still under construction and a pet project of Mr. Sall.

Then, in the hangar-like room where Mr. Faye would take his oath, Mr. Sonko took his place in the second row, just behind the two first ladies — wives of the polygamous new president. And Mr. Sonko got the biggest cheers of the day, every time his face appeared on the large screens at the front of the auditorium.

Much cheering also rang out for the military president of Guinea, and the representatives of Mali and Burkina Faso, three West African countries whose governments were overthrown in coups in recent years and are now ruled by juntas. The rhetoric of those juntas — focused on sovereignty from France, the former colonial power perceived by many West Africans as continuing to meddle in their affairs — mirrors that of Mr. Sonko and Mr. Faye.

“The youth of Senegal is connecting with the youth of those countries, over these issues of sovereignty,” the president’s uncle, also named Diomaye Faye, said in an interview on Tuesday.

Mr. Faye and Mr. Sonko have pledged to drop or change the terms of the CFA, the regional currency backed by France, and renegotiate Senegal’s contracts with foreign-owned companies to extract newly-discovered oil and gas.

In his speech, Mr. Faye stressed that Senegal would remain open to relations with other countries that are “respectful of our sovereignty, consistent with our people’s aspirations, and in a mutually winning partnership.”

After the swearing-in, a motorcade carried him to the presidential palace. Last week, Mr. Sall had welcomed him and Mr. Sonko, his former archrivals, in a stiff but determinedly friendly meeting — official photographs of which were later given to the media.

On Tuesday, Mr. Sall, a two-term president who had served for 12 years, welcomed Mr. Faye once more, who arrived this time with a presidential guard.

After sitting chatting for a while and handing over the important documents, Mr. Sall climbed into a Toyota, pulling out of the palace gates and leaving for good.

Ruth Maclean is the West Africa bureau chief for The Times, covering 25 countries including Nigeria, Congo, the countries in the Sahel region as well as Central Africa. More about Ruth Maclean

IMAGES

The Book of Ruth / English
The Book of Ruth: Background
Ruth
Study the Book of Ruth in the Bible with this Printable
Story of Ruth Research Paper Example
Ruth 1:16-17 The Loyal Love of Ruth

VIDEO

The Book of Ruth
The book of Ruth
Bible Study October 10, 2023 Ruth 1:6-18 Lesson 2
The Book of Ruth by Kaelyn Tassin
Book of Ruth Chapter 1-2
Book of Ruth

COMMENTS

A Summary and Analysis of the Book of Ruth
Book of Ruth: summary. A man named Elimelech, from Bethlehem-Judah, left his hometown when a famine struck. He and his wife Naomi, along with their two sons Mahlon and Chilion, left for Moab. Elimelech died, leaving Naomi with her two sons. These two sons married Moabite women: Orpah and Ruth. Ten years passed, and Mahlon and Chilion both died.
The Book of Ruth: Origin and Purpose
Considering the purpose of the book, again, scholars vary widely. Some refer to the story as an idyllische Novelle (Kaiser, 1969). Others hold that it is a political apology for David's lineage (Gow, 1992), and still others see it as a subversive cultural commentary (Fewell and Gunn, 1990). Though Ruth has been with us for anywhere between ...
Ruth
The Book of Ruth is a well-loved short story. Part of this affection is that the narrative has all the elements of good drama: an engaging plot, interesting characters, tension, romance, conflict, people overcoming hardship, and so much more. The moving account ends like a Cinderella story, in which the two main figures find love, marry, and ...
Book of Ruth Overview
The final words of the book link Ruth with her great-grandson, David (Ruth 4:17-22), so we know it was written after his anointing. The genealogy at the end of the book shows David's lineage through the days of the judges, acting as a support for his rightful kingship. Solomon is not mentioned, leading some to believe the book was written ...
A Literary Analysis of the Book of Ruth
The story of Ruth begins with death, moves toward marriage, and finds its ultimate fulfillment in birth. The Hebrew uses the same term ילד for sons to show in inclusio Naomi's loss of sons to her regaining of a child. The tension and tragedy lies in the empty and lonely Naomi.
The Book of Ruth reminds us to take seriously the lives of ordinary
The Book of Ruth enables readers to view, in a small-scale way, the foundational biblical story of the exodus. The second blessing mentions Tamar, who in Genesis 38, like Ruth, bore a child after ...
Ruth, Redemption, Covenant, and Christ
The book of Ruth is one of the most loved stories of the Old Testament. Yet sometimes it remains just that, a story from which some readers gain little in the way of doctrine or application. We identify with the story because the principal actors are neither kings nor prophets but the average people of a typical village. There are neither mighty warriors nor great conflicts, but there are ...
The Book Of Ruth Essay
Decent Essays. 1128 Words. 5 Pages. Open Document. The Book of Ruth In the bible The Book of Ruth follows the story of the widowed Naomi and her two widowed daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth. Throughout the story, the three experience life during biblical times. Although the time frame of this particular passage of the bible is widely debated ...
Book of Ruth: Achieving Justice Through Narrative
[1] This devar Torah is based on my essay, "Achieving Justice Through Narrative in the Hebrew Bible: The Limitations of Law in the Legal Potential of Literature," Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeshichte 20 (2014):181-199. [2] Even though it cannot be assumed that the sons married immediately upon their arrival in Moab, still the narrative notes that the sons lived ...
The Book of Ruth Essay Topics
Essay Topics. 1. The Book of Ruth is a coming-of-age story. In what ways does Ruth transform as an individual? Are the changes uniformly positive, negative, or a mix of both? 2.
Ruth: the Best Is Yet to Come
The story of Ruth is a series of setbacks. In chapter 1 Naomi and her husband and two sons were forced to leave their homeland in Judah on account of famine. Then Naomi's husband dies. Her sons marry Moabite women and for ten years the women prove to be barren. And then her sons die leaving two widows in the house of Naomi.
The book of Ruth
The book of Ruth. In the book of Ruth, the name Ruth itself means mercy. In the context of the book this mercy is to show that God's grace and mercy is for all the people in Israel. Ruth was a poor woman and on top of all she was as well a foreigner which made her life more difficult. However, during her difficult time she was helped by ...
Ruth: A Story of Lovingkindness
The book of Ruth is a beautifully and written story of love, faithfulness, and restoration that ultimately points us to God's purposes of redemption in Christ. ... Indeed, ranking just below the narrator's concern to essay God's providential care and direction of history is his goal of describing what ḥesed looks like in the context of ...
Why The Book of Ruth is Radical
The Biblical Book of Ruth is truly unlike any other biblical passage. Ruth is named after the Moabite protagonist of the narrative, who chooses to 'cling to' [davkah] her Israelite Mother-in ...
The Best Essay I've Ever Read on the Book of Ruth
Jesus is David, but David himself is Adam, Jacob, Moses, and Israel. According to the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7), for example, David's sons are sons of Yahweh; but Yahweh already has a son, Israel. Thus, David's sons personify Israel, and a Davidic Christology is at the same time an Israel Christology. To say that Jesus is the Son of David ...
What the Book of Ruth Teaches Us About God's Hesed Love
The book of Ruth takes place during the period of the Judges, a time of sin, turmoil, and hardship for Israel. While we often think of the book as a romance between Ruth and Boaz, the story really focuses on Ruth and Naomi. After settling in Moab with her husband and sons, Naomi loses everything and is left with her daughter-in-law, Ruth.
Book Of Ruth Essay
Book Of Ruth Essay. Better Essays. 2444 Words. 10 Pages. Open Document. Introduction. The book of Ruth gathers much attention from its readers because of its briefness and simplicity. The book of Ruth is set in ancient Israel in the later portion of the Judges era, as it serves as a bridge between the Judges rule and the monarchy is 1 & 2 Samuel.
Outline of the Book of Ruth: Basic & Detailed Outlines
Detailed Outline of Ruth. 1. Naomi loses her family (her husband, and two sons) (1:1-5) A. Famine and tragedy over take Namoi's house. 2. Naomi and Ruth return to Bethlehem (1:6-22) A. Ruth commits herself to Naomi while Orpha goes back home ( 1:6-18) B. Naomi's returns home to Bethlehem ( 1:19-22) 3.
PDF Structure and Intention of the Book of Ruth
B. Ellen van Wolde on Ruth and Tamar Among the previous interpretations, an essay by Ellen van Wolde on the rela-tion between Tamar and Ruth gives new impetus to the discussion.8 Following a presentation of her method, intertextual research, van Wolde describes points of 288 Westermann
The Book of Ruth Essay
The Book of Ruth Essay. Decent Essays. 676 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. The Book of Ruth Ruth is a story about loyalty, love, and faith. The simple love story is a key to understanding the plan of God for love, and marriage as revealed in the scripture. So simple, yet so powerful when understood, this book is dedicated to the scriptural ...
PDF An Essay of the position of Ruth in the Old Testament books
An Essay of the position of Ruth in the Old Testament books By Anne Mwangi Master of Divinity Student We have always been told that God moves in mysterious ways, that our steps are always guided by Him. The book of Ruth comes out very clearly that God is guiding all the occurrences relating to us. That all the prayers have nothing to do with ...
The Book Of Ruth Essay
The Book Of Ruth Essay. One way that God shows his justice through the story of Ruth, is the fact that her story takes place during one of the most chaotic times of Israel's history. When most of Israel is doing what is right in their own eyes, there is hope in the story of Ruth. Ruth shows us that why faithfulness is important, God rewards ...
Book of Ruth Essays
Ruth The book of Ruth is a narrative love story. "The book of Ruth is one of the great love stories of all times" (Hindson & Towns, 2013, p. 111). The author of this book is anonymous. This book was believed to be written between 1020 - 1000 B.C. The key personalities, or people, in this book are: Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz.
Babe Ruth Research Paper
The book, The Story of Babe Ruth, Baseball's Greatest Legend states, "But Brother Matthias insisted that if George knew enough to make fun of another pitcher, he knew enough to pitch for himself. The brother was planning on teaching the smart-alec a lesson in humility, but unfortunately, the lesson backfired" (Eisenberg 23).
Senegal President Bassirou Diomaye Faye Takes Office and Promises
Senegal's new president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, took the oath of office in Tuesday's ceremony. Close behind him sat the popular opposition leader who had clinched the win. By Ruth Maclean ...
Ohtani Shohei, the saviour of modern baseball, is mired in scandal
Essay; Schools brief; Business & economics. Finance & economics; ... (some will argue for Babe Ruth, another two-way player), he is by far the sport's biggest-ever star. ... a new book about a ...

A Summary and Analysis of the Book of Ruth

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Book of Ruth: Origin and Purpose

Bibliography

Add new comment

Most Popular

U.S. Edition

To All The World

Invitation to Ruth

Scene 1: In Moab (1:1–18)

Hatching a Plan (3:1–6)

Scene 3: At the Threshing Floor (3:1-18)

Bibliography

Permissions

Naomi Widowed

Ruth’s Loyalty to Naomi

Naomi and Ruth Return

Who wrote the book?

Where are we?

Why is Ruth so important?

What's the big idea?

How do I apply this?

Bible Study Chart

The Book of Ruth reminds us to take seriously the lives of ordinary people

Most popular

The latest from america

The Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament

Helpful Links

Connect with Us

Book of Ruth: Achieving Justice Through Narrative

The Back-Story to the Legal Dispute

A Family Destroyed

Reshaping Legal Institutions to Help Widows

Inheritance

Levirate ( Yibbum )

Who Will Help Naomi?

A Laborious Legal Process

Protecting Widows: How Narrative Helps Law to Be More Just

Narrative vs. Law

The Book of Ruth

Essay Topics

Featured Collections

Ruth: A Story of Lovingkindness

What does Ruth teach us about God?

What does Ruth teach us about Jesus?

What does Ruth teach us about the people of God?

Recent Posts

Implications of the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 for Biblical Prophecy

AD 70 as a Sign of “The End”

The Final Verdict: Judgment for Israel and Vindication for Jesus

Judgment on God’s House: A Central Theme of the Prophets

The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Vindication of Jesus

The Best Essay I’ve Ever Read on the Book of Ruth

Share this:

Leave a comment

What the Book of Ruth Teaches Us About God’s Hesed Love

What is Hesed?

Naomi and Ruth: What was it like for widows and orphans living in Israel?

How do we see Hesed in the book of Ruth?

Naomi and Ruth

Boaz and Ruth

Boaz marries Ruth

God and Ruth/Naomi

God and Israel… and eventually the whole world

What’s the point? Some takeaways to consider

Share this:

Loved the article? Sign up for the newsletter for more!

Outline of the Book of Ruth: Basic & Detailed Outlines

Background Facts About The Book Of Ruth

The Author of Ruth

The Date or Timeline

Key People in the Book of Ruth

Basic Outline of the Book of Ruth

Detailed Outline of Ruth

More On The Book Of Ruth

The Book of Ruth

Uncovering the Mystery of Ruth in the Bible: Who Was She Really?

Discover 5 Powerful Characteristics Of Boaz In The Bible

5 Spiritual Lessons from the Book of Ruth

7 Inspiring Characteristics of Ruth in the Bible