Your God My God

Rev Rodney A. Gray

 Studies in the Book of Ruth

Historical background.

The background of the Book of Ruth is said to be “in the days when the judges ruled”
(Ruth 1:1). Thus immediately it becomes necessary to examine the period in Israel’s
history that is described more fully in the Book of Judges. It is remarkable that, while the
two narratives describe life in essentially the same historical and cultural surroundings,
they differ so markedly in style and content.

The days when the judges ruled are introduced in the Bible with the words, “After the
death of Joshua...” (Judges 1:1). Joshua was the most recent addition to the Israelite hall
of fame. He had led them across Jordan into their inheritance. One of his most important
measures was to see to it that the Tent of Meeting was set up in the place called Shiloh,
deep in the heart of the promised land (Joshua 18:1). Although Bethel is named as an
alternative site (Judges 20:18,26,27), Shiloh became the central location for Israelite
worship during much of the period of the judges (Judges 18:31; 21:19). It was to this
place that Samuel was brought and dedicated to the Lord as a very young child (I Samuel
1:24). So we may assume that “the days when the judges ruled” extended from the death
of Joshua to the rise of Samuel and the prophets, a period of more than three hundred
years.

The positioning of the tabernacle at Shiloh represented a significant advance in Israel’s

invasion of Canaan. It was soon followed by the division of the land among those tribes
that had not yet received their allotment (Joshua 18). The Books of Judges and Ruth must
be read with the understanding that the land had already been apportioned out to the
people of Israel by tribes, and each had staked out its claim to a greater or lesser extent.
But despite the settlement of Israel in the land, many of the resident tribal groups
continued to maintain a presence there. This was the source of endless problems during
the times of the judges and beyond. The first two chapters of the Book of Judges
summarize the situation that prevailed throughout this period of Israel’s history. “After
the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the Lord, ‘Who will be the first to go up and fight
for us against the Canaanites’” (1:1). In other words, the Canaanites were still in the land.

“The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and
Jebusites. They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their
sons, and served their gods” (Judges 3:5,6).
The story of the Book of Judges is the record of Israel’s failure to fully and finally
dispossess the pagan peoples of Canaan. Instead of driving them out completely, they
pressed the Canaanites into forced labor whenever they could (Judges 1:27-36). Moses
had long ago given explicit orders that called for total destruction and expulsion
(Deuteronomy 7:1-6). But after the death of Joshua, the people of Israel began to settle
for various forms of co-existence with the nations they were supposed to dispossess, even
adopting their detestable religious practices. God has called his people out of the world to
stand apart and be different. Whenever they attempt any form of appeasement or
accommodation to the world, it never results in elevating paganism to a higher standard.
The result is invariably the degrading of true religion. This is a lesson for the churches of
today, many of which have ensnared themselves in the same trap. Believing that they
have succeeded in reaching people by adopting a more appealing method and message,
they have instead become ensnared by the world.

In the face of these conditions, it must be remembered that Israel had no great, unifying
leader matching the caliber of a Joshua or Moses. “In those days Israel had no king;
everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25). The people whom the Lord raised up to judge
Israel during this time were in many cases outstanding leaders who commanded great
influence. Nevertheless, they were essentially tribal leaders whose activities were
restricted to local areas. The cycle of disobedience, defeat, oppression, and deliverance
through which Israel passed repeatedly is summarized in Judges 2. Depending on which
nation overpowered Israel at any particular time, God would raise up a “judge” there to
achieve victory and establish peace. But inevitably Israel’s disobedient ways would result
in war all over again, which would call for the appearance of yet another leader.

Israel under the covenant.

The events recorded in the Books of Judges and Ruth must be read against the
background of the covenant. The Lord’s complaint against them was that “this nation has
violated the covenant” (Judges 2:20). This was the arrangement that God had put in place
through the mediation of Moses during Israel’s encampment on the Sinai Peninsula. The
events associated with Mount Sinai were spectacular in many ways. But most important
was the transaction that took place there that gave Israel its status as a nation chosen and
appointed by God to occupy the land of the Canaanites. Everything they needed to know
about how the Lord wanted them to live as a settled community was spelled out in the
Law of Moses, which the New Testament identifies as the old covenant (Hebrews 8). The
core or heart of their constitution was summarized in the ten commandments engraved on
the covenant documents, the tablets of stone. Of special interest to this study are the
curses and blessings attached to covenant disobedience and obedience respectively, and
detailed in Deuteronomy 28. It is clear that “blessing” depended on obedience, and
“cursing” was sure to follow on the heels of disobedience. This was a covenant in which
happiness and peace were contingent upon Israel’s faithful performance of
commandments. “All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you
obey the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 28:2). But just as certainly, Israel’s infidelity
would bring retribution.

“However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his
commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and
overtake you” (Deuteronomy 28:15).

It should not escape our notice that the conditions that would result both from obedience
and disobedience are characteristic of the life and experience of Israel during the days
when the judges ruled. Indeed, there was a direct connection between covenant
unfaithfulness in Israel and the famine that compelled Naomi and Elimelech to leave their
home and seek better conditions in the country of Moab (Ruth 1:1). In other words, the
days when the judges ruled in Israel demonstrated the inevitable failure of life under the
Law to produce a righteousness that God approves. It proved that man’s condition is too
serious for man himself to cure, and that the promises of God are so great that no one but
God himself can fulfill them.

The purpose of the Book of Ruth.

We may well ask the question, Why is the Book of Ruth in the Bible? It is safest to
assume that the purpose of the Book coincides with God’s purpose in redemption. Even
so, a variety of proposals have been put forward, some bordering on the trivial. Some
have suggested that the author simply wanted to tell a good story. Others have argued that
the writer’s purpose was to make a case in favor of mixed marriages. Still others think
that the story of Ruth focuses on God’s providential care in the daily experience of life.
There is the view that the story is supposed to teach about friendship. Some have
proposed that it teaches “universalism,” i.e., that God is interested in non-Jewish peoples
just as much as he is interested in the people of Israel. Others believe that the principle of
“levirate marriage” is the key to the book (the brother of a man who died childless was
required to marry the widow).

It must be granted that these suggestions are worth mentioning and considering, because
the story of Ruth includes all of these features in one way or another. But we must
remember that we are dealing with the revealed and inspired word of God, the Scriptures
that make us “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (II Timothy 3:15,16). We
must take into account too that all the Scriptures testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). This
points us to the significant fact that the Book of Ruth concludes with the genealogy of
David, a feature that has led many to argue that this is the main point of the Book of
Ruth. Probably this brings us closest to the great significance of the Book and the reason
why it is in our Bibles along side the Book of Judges. It teaches us that God is quietly at
work, faithfully and patiently moving along in his purpose to bring the Redeemer into the
world. In contrast to the violence, warfare, famine, idolatry, and disgrace that so
characterized the life Israel under the judges, we have in the Book of Ruth something
markedly different. God was seeking and finding an obscure peasant girl in the country of
Moab to become a participant in the fulfillment of his gracious word of promise. In a
period of tremendous upheaval and uncertainty, when there was no king in Israel, God
was seeing to the business of giving Israel a king. The formation of the family of David
represents an important milestone in the unfolding of God’s redemptive purpose. This is
why the rest of the Old Testament focuses on “the house and lineage of David” until the
coming of Jesus, the Son of David.

God’s sovereignty and providence.

In keeping with the above we should also be able to discern in the story of Ruth that God
is sovereign in his providence. This means that, like the entire Bible, it is really a book
about God. As is often the case, God’s action and initiative in human lives are understated
and assumed, but unmistakably present. The Book of Esther is a more extreme example
of this, revealing a God who is sovereign over all events, yet never mentioning him once.
In Ruth the name of the Lord is by no means absent. In fact, he is called by three names:
Jehovah/Yahweh (18 times), Elohim (twice), and Shaddai/Almighty (twice). So while the
names and actions of people are prominently displayed, it would be a mistake to conclude
that God plays a minor role. In chapter one, Elimelech took his family to Moab. In
chapter two, Ruth took the initiative to go into the fields. In chapter three Naomi
appeared to manipulate events behind the scenes. In chapter four Boaz seemed to be in
charge. But clearly none of the principal characters was in control. “The Lord God of
Israel,” under whose wings Ruth had come to trust, was watching over his people,
blessing those who put their trust in him (Ruth 2:12). Seen in the light of the whole of
Scripture, events such as the famine in the land, the deaths of the men, Ruth’s landing in
the field of Boaz, and subsequent developments cannot be explained apart from a
sovereign God who “doth uphold, direct, dispose and govern all creatures, actions and
things, from the greatest even to the least” (Westminster Confession of Faith).

Chapter 1: From Bethlehem to Moab and Back.

“In the days when the judges ruled” (verses 1-5).

God’s people know that Bethlehem was “the town of David” and subsequently the place
of the Savior’s birth (Luke 2:4). The Book of Ruth tells the story of how David’s great
grandfather established his home and family there. Bethlehem in Judah is to be
distinguished from Bethlehem in the territory of Zebulun in the north. The older name of
Bethlehem in Judah was Ephrath (Genesis 35:19). Hence, Elimelech and his family are
called “Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah” (1:2). It is interesting that the name
“Bethlehem” means “house of bread.” We might associate the significance of this with
our practice of referring to the mid-western part of our country as the nation’s
“breadbasket.” It describes an area that is especially fertile and productive. This was the
normal situation in Bethlehem, as suggested by the harvest scene in chapter 2 of Ruth.
However, at this particular time, it was anything but that, possibly owing to the ravages
of tribal warfare. The sobering fact was that “there was a famine in the land” (1:1). The
Book of Judges tells how Gideon came to prominence at a time when “the Midianites,
Amalekites and other eastern peoples” were ravaging both crops and livestock (Judges
6:1-6). In Judges 17 Bethlehem is mentioned in relation to a Levite from there who was
installed as a priest at a private shrine in the hill country of Ephraim. Bethlehem was the
home of a concubine who belonged to a “Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill
country of Ephraim” (Judges 19:1). The savage brutality inflicted on her led to the
conflict between the Benjamites and the other tribes recorded in Judges 20. Such was the
violence and destruction that characterized the times.

The first five verses both set the stage and introduce the cast of characters. The story
begins by relating the experience of one family in Judah during the time in Israel’s
history when the judges ruled. Elimelech may have been a comparatively wealthy man.
He and his family must have been well known to the writer of the Book of Ruth. It is
significant that, when Naomi returned to her hometown, “the whole town was stirred”
(1:19). Evidently everyone knew who she was and considered her reappearance on the
scene especially noteworthy. Naomi herself testified that she “went away full” (1:21),
possibly referring to the family’s material wealth at least in part. More importantly,
Elimelech must have had parents who tried to instill in him some religious convictions.
His name means, “My God is King.” Elimelech is not a character in the main story, but
his influence must have had something to do with how Naomi handled subsequent events,
including the various remarks she made throughout the story with reference to the Lord.

This raises the question whether Elimelech met the crisis of the famine as a man who
really did believe what his name implied. Did his decision to leave Bethlehem and move
to Moab reflect a strong confidence that his God was King? Others, such as Boaz,
apparently remained in Judah and endured the famine until it passed. How could
Elimelech have thought that it was the will of the Lord to flee to Moab? Moab was a
pagan culture known for its practice of human sacrifice to the god Chemosh. The
Moabites originated from an incestuous relationship between Lot and his older daughter
(Genesis 19:36,37). Their famous king Balak hired Balaam the prophet to bring down a
curse on Israel. When this failed the Moabites seduced them into idolatry and immorality
(Numbers 22-25). Citing this incident, the Law of Moses excluded the Moabites from
“the assembly of the Lord, even down to the tenth generation” (Deuteronomy 23:3-6).
The Book of Judges tells about Eglon, the Moabite king, who gained power over the
Israelites and oppressed them for eighteen years (Judges 3:12-14). What could have
commended Moab as a destination of choice for a son of Israel?

In any case, Elimelech did take his family to Moab. He went there to save his life only to
die there (1:3). The circumstances of his death are not explained. Both his sons married
Moabite women (1:4). This was presumably toward the end of the ten-year sojourn
mentioned in verse 4, since apparently there were no children from either marriage.
Shortly after this, for some unspecified reason, both sons died (1:5). At the very least, it is
tempting to wonder if this was the chastening hand of the Lord. Is there any other way to
account for these premature deaths if it was not the hand of God for disobedience? At the
same time, the record does hint at the likelihood that Elimelech was not unaware of the
risk in going to Moab. For one thing, he must have intended to make it a temporary stay,
since it was to be only “for a while.” The word means “to sojourn, or dwell temporarily,”
as when Abram ventured into Egypt for a while during a time of famine (Genesis 12:10).
For another thing, he took his family to “the country of Moab” (1:1). This word is used
repeatedly in the story to refer to a rural area, an open field, or open country, as opposed
to a city or town (1:2,6,22; 2:2,3,6,8,9,17,22; 4:3,5). So at least it may be said in
Elimelech’s favor that he had no intention of immersing his family in the Moabite way of
life. Perhaps he hoped to minimize their exposure to it by staying away from those areas
where it would be most concentrated. All the same, very early in the story we are told that
“Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband” (1:5). Whatever heartbreak,
sorrow, and anguish lay behind this gloomy report, we can only imagine.

“The Lord had come to the aid of his people” (verses 6-14).
News somehow reached the country of Moab that conditions had improved in the land of
Judah. It is interesting that there were means of communication across the borders of
ancient nation states. But more interesting still is the particular wording of this report:
“the Lord had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them” (1:6). The KJV
reads, “the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread.” In other words, it was not
that the weather had improved or the economy had bounced back, but that “the Lord had
visited his people.” Whenever the Lord “visits” his people he intends to take action that
will produce a great change in their condition or circumstances. When he visited Sarah
she became pregnant (Genesis 21:1,2). When the Lord visited his people in Egypt, he
meant to bring them out of there (Exodus 3:16,17). Neighboring nations evidently
watched with some attention how Israel’s God was dealing with his people. In her
distress, Naomi turned her thoughts toward home. More importantly, she seems to have
turned her thoughts toward the Lord.
It is important to bear in mind that here were three women who were widows, and
childless as well. They had suffered the loss of everything they held dear, and now they
must all three decide what to do. Their plight was especially challenging because they
were widows, and life for them would be a daily struggle for survival. They would be
especially vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous men (Exodus 22:22-24;
Deuteronomy 24:17,18). They would be dependent on the kindness of strangers
(Deuteronomy 14:28,29). At the same time, the Lord God of Israel, who had a special
interest in the widow and orphan, made provision for their protection and help in the Law
of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; 26:12). Naomi must have had some knowledge of these
things and therefore felt assured that life for her would be far more favorable in Judah
than in Moab. For Orpah and Ruth she had other ideas.

The three women set out together on the road leading to the Jordan River. Whether Ruth
and Orpah originally intended to accompany Naomi only a short distance, or whether
they had privately decided that they wanted to go with her to Bethlehem, is simply
not clear. What is clear is that at some point in their journey when they were still
close enough to Moab, Naomi stopped to send them back to their mothers’ homes.
We can only imagine the conversation that led up to what is recorded in our text. At a
certain place she turned to the younger women and said, “Go back, each of you, to
your mother’s home” (1:8). Naomi was insistent and even called down the blessing
of Lord upon them. She prayed that the Lord would “show kindness” to them. Naomi
had in mind the loving kindness of the Lord for his covenant people. The KJV
translates it as “mercy” in Psalm 23:6. Exactly what she could have intended by this
we cannot know, in light of the fact that she was urging their return to Moab. Naomi
also wished that the Lord would grant each of them “rest in the home of another
husband” (1:9). Later, Naomi would make it her goal to find “rest” for Ruth in the
home of Boaz (3:1). This “rest” is like the “still/quiet waters” of Psalm 23:2, or the
glorious “place of rest” of the Messiah when “the earth will be full of the knowledge
of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9,10). It is a word that means to be
settled in one place with security and finality. But here again we may be justified in
questioning her judgment. Was Moab the place to find “rest,” from the perspective of
a woman who knew the God of Israel? Did she really believe that Ruth and Orpah
would be better off if they returned to Moab with its pagan culture and religion? That
she specified their “mother’s house” and not their “father’s house” may indicate that
their fathers had multiple wives. More serious is the fact that she later mentioned that
Orpah had returned “to her people and to her gods” (1:15). Could this have been a
good thing by any definition?

It was a highly charged emotional scene as the younger women were faced with a
difficult decision. “We will go back with you to your people,” they insisted (1:10). Naomi
called them “my daughters” (1:11), though they were called “daughters-in-law” earlier
(1:8). Such was the obvious affection she had for them both. As it turned out, one decided
to turn back while the other remained steadfast in her determination to continue with
Naomi (1:14). Naomi had painted a bleak picture of the prospects for happiness in her
hometown, so Orpah decided to return to her mother’s house. What made Orpah turn
back? Perhaps she wanted more than anything else the very things that Naomi said she
would never have if she remained with her – a husband, a family, and a future. Naomi
pointed out that there was no prospect of her providing any more sons for the women to
marry. When she said, “No, my daughters” (1:13), it was with firm resolve. As bad as
things were for them, she saw her own future as so much the worse that she would have
no way of providing for them or helping them. They had each lost a husband, but Naomi
had lost a husband and two sons. More than that, she saw it as a proof of the Lord’s
displeasure. Naomi said, “It is more bitter for me than for you, because the Lord’s hand
has gone out against me” (1:13). Perhaps she should never have left Bethlehem in the
first place, and now she would have to live with the consequences.

“Where you go I will go” (verses 15-18).

Naomi urged Ruth to follow Orpah’s lead and return with her to Moab – “to her people
and her gods” (1:15). But Ruth was by now of a different mind than Orpah, as evidenced
by her famous speech (1:16,17). Hers was not merely a personal attachment to Naomi.
Nor was she driven by the heightened emotion of the moment. Foundational to her
faithful commitment to Naomi was Ruth’s acceptance of Naomi’s God. “Your people will
be my people, and your God my God.” Ruth must have made a deliberate, voluntary
choice to worship the Lord God of Israel. Later in the story, Boaz would recognize the
sincerity of her faith when he spoke of “the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings you
have come to take refuge” (2:12). For now, Ruth’s trust in the Lord overruled every other
consideration, and seemed almost to surpass that of Naomi. She was not only renouncing
her people, but more importantly, her gods.

The strength and seriousness of Ruth’s resolve were confirmed by her invoking the name
of the Lord in an oath. “May the Lord deal with me…” (1:17). Eli used the same formula
when he demanded that Samuel tell him what the Lord had said to him (I Samuel 3:17).
King Saul swore that his son Jonathan must die, using the same oath (I Samuel 14:44).
Jonathan later used the same words to swear his loyalty to David (I Samuel 20:13). And
David spoke in similar fashion (I Samuel 25:22). Numerous other examples of this oath
formula confirm that it was not to be taken lightly. It was of such a nature that, once Ruth
had so declared herself, Naomi knew that it was futile to argue with her further, and “she
stopped urging her” (1:18).
“Can this be Naomi?” (verses 19-22).
No details are given about the journey of Naomi and Ruth from Moab to Bethlehem, a
journey that must have taken several days. We are only told that when they appeared in
the village there was great excitement over their arrival. In response to the inquiry of her
old friends - “Can this be Naomi?” (1:19) - she gave expression to her deep seated hurt
and bitterness by telling them not to call her Naomi, which means “pleasant,” but to call
her Mara, “because the Almighty has made my life very bitter” (1:20). This name was
perhaps an Aramaic form of Marah, the name given to the place where the Israelites
found the water to be bitter (Exodus 15:23). Naomi’s calling the Lord “the Almighty”
meant that she acknowledged his sovereignty over her life, even in far away Moab. Does
the Almighty make peoples’ lives bitter? Does he afflict people and bring misfortune
upon them? Certainly Naomi understood that things do not happen by random chance.
Nor do they happen without purpose or meaning (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; 4:6-13). It is
worth pointing out that she said, “I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back
empty” (1:21). She went away, but the Lord brought her back. So she also invoked the
Lord’s covenant name because she would not deny that he had been faithful in all his
ways. Twice in verses 20 and 21 Naomi used “the Almighty” and “the Lord” in
combination. Perhaps this is another hint she had come to the realization that she should
not have gone away.

Not surprisingly, little or no attention was paid to Ruth. It appears that the women hardly
gave her passing notice in their preoccupation with Naomi. But still more disappointing is
the fact that nothing is said that would lead us to believe that there was any ongoing
concern for Naomi after her friends found out how things had gone for her. Once they
learned that she had suffered the loss of everything, they seem to have abandoned her and
Ruth to fend for themselves. Perhaps it was because of the Moabite woman with her that
she was not invited into any of their homes, homes that in days gone by Naomi had
frequently visited. Not until the end of the story do we find a significant change in
Naomi’s old friends.

The concluding statement of the chapter provides not only a summary of what has
happened, but also a bridge leading into the narrative of events in the next chapter. But
perhaps most important of all, it has something to say about the providence of God in
relation to all these developments. We are told that it just happened to be at the beginning
of the barley harvest that Ruth and Naomi arrived in Bethlehem. By this remark we are
reminded of the provision made in Israel’s law that allowed indigent persons to help
themselves to grain left behind by the reapers (Leviticus 19:9,10; 23:22; Deuteronomy
24:19-22). But it also reminds us that God has providentially brought them to this time
and place. What an opportune time for Naomi and Ruth, given their desperate
circumstances, to arrive in Bethlehem! Naomi had left in a time of famine, and now she
has returned empty handed, but as the barley harvest was about to begin. The family’s
move to Moab, Ruth’s coming into the family, the survival of the wives but not the
husbands, the fact that Ruth returned but not Orpah, the desperate plight of Ruth and
Naomi – all things were proceeding “according to the plan of him who works out
everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).
Chapter 2: Ruth in the Field of Boaz

“In a field belonging to Boaz” (verses 1-3).

While the first chapter covered a period of more than ten years, this chapter, with the
exception of the last verse, covers only one day in the life of Ruth. The central figure in
the story, next to Ruth herself, is Boaz. The writer introduced him at the beginning of this
chapter as Naomi’s “kinsman,” or “a relative on her husband’s side, from the clan of
Elimelech” (2:1). He was a relative in the sense that he was someone she knew in the
wider family, since the word comes from the verb “to know.” Naomi spoke of him again
this way in 3:2. The “clan” was the extended family (also in 2:3). Boaz had not actually
arrived on the scene yet, but the writer wanted to stress that he would play a central role
in the lives of Ruth and Naomi from this point on. We are told that Boaz was a “man of
standing” (2:1). This could mean that he had gained a reputation as a brave warrior like
Gideon (Judges 6:12). This was the most common meaning, but the word could also
mean that he was a wealthy landowner, or that he was highly respected by his people.
Boaz applied the word in the latter sense to Ruth when he said, “All my fellow townsmen
know that you are a woman of noble character” (3:11). According to the KJV, Boaz was
“a mighty man of wealth.” His “standing” could well have been attributed to all these
possibilities. The meaning of Boaz’ name is uncertain, but it is of interest to know that
this was the name given to one of the great pillars in front of Solomon’s temple (I Kings
7:21). Was Solomon honoring the memory of his ancestor in this way?

This chapter helps us to appreciate the situation of the poor in that time and place. Ruth
and Naomi were immediately faced with the necessity of providing food for themselves.
They had apparently found shelter, perhaps in what was left of Naomi and Elimelech’s
former home. And now Ruth, being the younger woman and sensing her responsibility to
care for her mother in law, proposed to go out into the fields and glean whatever she
could from the barley harvest. We should not overlook the notable detail that Ruth was
called “the Moabitess,” as is the case in five out of the twelve times her name is
mentioned in the book. She carried this identity with her as a liability as she ventured out
into her new world.

We have already referred to the legal provisions in the Sinai covenant which granted the
poor, the widow, the homeless, and the alien the right to pick up grain left behind in the
fields.
“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or
gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick
up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your
God” (Leviticus 19:9,10; 23:22; also Deuteronomy 24:19-22).

Of particular importance in these texts is the reminder, “I am the Lord your God.” It was
an important reminder because it pointed to two underlying principles governing the
people of God as they lived in the land. The first was that the land, all of it, belonged to
the Lord. They were obligated to treat it as such and respect God’s claims upon it. In the
second place, the Lord was their covenant Lord and they were his covenant people. They
were thereby duty bound to reflect the character and conduct of their Lord in the way
they lived. The Lord was concerned about the poor and helpless, and they should be, too.

The practice of “gleaning” provided some hope and help for the indigent, but it required
hard work under a blazing sun and sometimes yielded meager results. Furthermore,
landowners did not always abide by the spirit of the law. Unscrupulous men have always
found ways of circumventing the law, and Ruth knew she may well be turned out of some
fields at the whim of the person in charge. This explains how she worded her proposal:
“Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find
favor” (2:2). “Favor” is translated “grace” in the KJV, as in Genesis 6:8 – “Noah found
favor/grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Ruth did not presume that everyone would deal
kindly with her. She might have had to move from place to place until she finally landed
“in a field belonging to Boaz” (2:3). Ruth already began to display certain commendable
character traits. For one thing, she was not intimidated by adverse circumstances. She
boldly took the initiative, no doubt overcoming fear and uncertainty. Ruth was willing to
adapt to a new situation. Once she decided on a course of action, she showed persistence
in pursuing it. She was prepared to accept responsibility, both for herself and Naomi, and
she did not shrink from it because of the difficulties. All of these factors no doubt
demonstrated the sincerity of her earlier vow to Naomi: “Your people will be my people
and your God my God” (1:16).

The procedure by which Ruth finally wound up in Boaz’ field deserves notice. According
to the KJV, “her hap was to light on a part of the field.” From the human standpoint, it
describes something that happened by chance or coincidence. But the Book of Ruth was
written from God’s perspective. In the providence of God, there are no coincidental or
chance events, and this is the great emphasis throughout the story. At the same time, this
in no way diminishes the reality or significance of every personal decision and choice
that is made as the story unfolds. We have already seen that Naomi and Ruth’s return to
Bethlehem was perfectly timed to coincide with the harvest. Before that, the providence
of God was vividly demonstrated in numerous ways through the sojourn in Moab that
incorporated Ruth into the family in which she was about to become an ancestor of
David. Once again, within the space of only three verses, Boaz was identified as being
“from the clan of Elimelech” (2:3). This repeated advance notice of the importance of
Boaz alerts us to the fact that he was qualified to fulfill the role of “kinsman redeemer.”
He had first to be a kinsman or order to be a redeemer.

“Just then Boaz arrived” (verses 4-16).

When Boaz arrived on the scene, there were greetings exchanged between him and his
workers (2:4). What they said indicates that Boaz maintained a kind and friendly
relationship with them. It was a relationship in which they acknowledged the Lord God
of Israel. We are not surprised then to learn that Boaz’ treatment of Ruth followed a
similar pattern. It is probably fair to assume that Boaz knew everyone in his field, if not
by name, at least by sight. When he spotted Ruth he immediately realized that she was an
unknown new comer. He inquired of his foreman who she was, and the foreman
identified her as “the Moabitess who came back from Moab with Naomi” (2:6). It seemed
that everything anyone needed to know about her was that she was “the Moabitess.” Still,
the foreman had to speak favorably of Ruth, making sure to report that “she has worked
steadily from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter” (2:7). Ruth’s “work
ethic” was commendable. She chose honorable work, even though it was humble work.
Those who observed her had to know that she could have fallen into prostitution rather
than accept the menial task of gleaning. Even the constant reminder that she was “the
Moabitess” did not deter her nor drive her from the field.

Boaz must have recognized the dignity and self-respect with which she conducted
herself. He took a personal interest in Ruth, having heard about her unfailing love and
loyalty to Naomi. He gave her specific instructions about how to make her gleaning
productive (2:8,9). First, he told her to remain in his field, and not look for another.
Second, he advised her to stay close to his servant girls who could give her help and
guidance. Third, he warned the men not to molest her in any way. And fourth, he made
his water supply available to her. This was a special favor because water for the field
laborers would have been a closely guarded commodity.

Ruth’s first words to Boaz expressed thoughts suggestive of those that come from the
hearts of people who know Jesus Christ as a redeemer. “Why have I found such favor in
your eyes that you notice me – a foreigner?” (2:10). Just as by “favor” she meant “grace”
when she spoke to Naomi at the start of the day (2:3), so here as well. Ruth was finding
out what it means to “find grace,” yet it could also be said that grace was finding her.
Ruth could say with John Newton,

“I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.”
Boaz’ remarks in response are a window into his soul (2:11,12). He had already
acquainted himself with Ruth’s story. He knew about everything that had happened, and
the circumstances that had brought her to Bethlehem, “the house of bread.” Most
important of all, Boaz knew that Ruth had sought and found refuge in the Lord God of
Israel. The imagery of finding refuge “under his wings” is a favorite theme in the prayers
and praises of God’s people (Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). His greatest desire
for her was that she would live under the blessing and protection of the Lord. For her
part, Ruth could not help but associate the blessing of the Lord with the favor shown her
by Boaz. According to the KJV she said, “Let me find favor in thy sight, my lord” (2:13).
But she had already found favor with Boaz, and her intention was to acknowledge and
thank him for it. The NIV renders it, “May I continue to find favor in your eyes, my
lord.” This is the same “favor/grace” of which Ruth spoke in verses 2 and 10. It was one
the few good things that had happened in her life since her husband died. She also stated
that Boaz had given her “comfort.” This was the comfort of which David spoke when he
said, “your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Psalm 23:4). It is like the comfort God
offers his people in the proclamation of the gospel (Isaiah 40:1). Ruth also said that Boaz
had “spoken kindly to your servant.” Literally this means “to speak to or upon the heart.”
In other words, Boaz’ kind words touched her heart. This was “grace” in Ruth’s
estimation, because she considered herself beneath the status of the servant girls. As it
turned out, Boaz himself became the servant of the Lord through whom his own prayer
for Ruth was answered.

At mealtime Boaz invited Ruth to join him and his harvesters. He did not want her to feel
like an outsider and took noticeable steps to assure Ruth that she was accepted. Boaz saw
to it that she was provided with generous servings of everything that was available. “She
ate all she wanted and had some left over” (2:14). Furthermore, he instructed his workers
to allow her to gather “among the sheaves,” a practice that normally would not be
tolerated (2:15). And as if that were not enough, he even gave orders to “pull out some
stalks for her from the bundles and leave them for her to pick up, and don’t rebuke her”
(2:16).

“Then Ruth told her mother-in-law” (verses 17-23).

It was with great delight and gratitude that Naomi welcomed Ruth home after the long
day in the fields gathering grain. Considering the amount of grain Ruth brought back to
town, plus the roasted grain left over from her meal at Boaz’s table, Naomi knew that
things must have gone exceptionally well for Ruth that day. Ruth had worked hard, and
the workers had followed Boaz’ instructions. The writer tells us that Naomi took notice of
the result of Ruth’s labors (1:18). She could not wait to learn the details and asked Ruth,
“Where did you glean today?” (2:19). Even before she had the answer she called down
the blessing of God upon the man who had been so considerate of Ruth. Upon learning
the man’s identity, Naomi was all the more thrilled at the way events were taking shape.
The NIV does not make it clear whether Naomi meant that the Lord or Boaz had “not
stopped showing kindness to the living and the dead” (2:20). The KJV, in a more accurate
translation, makes it clearer that it was the Lord, just as in 1:8. In any case, the Lord was
demonstrating his kindness through Boaz.

Naomi recognized Boaz as more than just a relative on her husband’s side of the family.
“That man is our close relative; he is one of our kinsman redeemers” (2:20). “Close
relative” means “near to us,” but not necessarily “nearest,” as the same word indicates in
3:12. More importantly, Boaz was near enough to be a kinsman redeemer. The role that
Boaz eventually played as kinsman redeemer forms the great theme of the story of Ruth.
The basic idea of the role of kinsman redeemer (go’el) was to do as a kinsman should do
and thus to help his relative out of difficulty or danger. It is a word that indicates
obligation; someone was obligated to someone else because they were related. One type
of difficulty in which one might be called upon to fulfill the duty of the kinsman
redeemer is described in Leviticus 25:23-28. A relative has fallen on hard times and finds
it necessary to sell some of his property. The law provides that “his nearest relative is to
come and redeem what his countryman has sold.” The same sort of provision is made in
the case of someone who sold himself as a slave (Leviticus 25:47-55). The references to
the “avenger of blood” in Numbers 35 may also be associated with the obligations of the
kinsman redeemer. In each case the kinsman is to accept responsibility for his relative’s
person and property. In the Book of Ruth, the outstanding feature of the kinsman
redeemer’s function is brought out in the levirate marriage custom. This practice,
discussed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, was also a part of the duty of the kinsman redeemer.
Clearly, Naomi immediately recognized in Boaz someone to whom she could look to take
up the obligation belonging to the kinsman redeemer. Her advice to Ruth agreed with that
of Boaz who said, “Stay with my workers until they finish harvesting all my grain”
(2:21,22). Ruth respectfully obeyed, and continued to live with Naomi (2:23).

Chapter 3: Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing Floor

“I will do whatever you say” (verses 1-6).

In this chapter the story of Ruth reaches its turning point. Acting on the advice of Naomi,
Ruth actually began to take steps to approach Boaz about the business of kinsman-
redeemer. Naomi expressed her continuing determination to “find rest” for her daughter-
in-law (3:1). This concern had been with her ever since they parted company with Orpah
in the plains of Moab (1:9). Naomi wanted Ruth to be able to settle down with a husband,
family, and home of her own so that she would no longer have to bear the burden of
being widowed and childless. She had a plan which, if Ruth followed it, she hoped would
accomplish that goal. She pointed out that Boaz was “a kinsman of ours” (3:2).
Originally he was identified as Naomi’s kinsman through Elimelech, her husband (2:1).
But when Ruth reported that she had gleaned in his field, Naomi assured her, “That man
is our close relative; he is one of our kinsman-redeemers” (2:20). Ruth, though a
Moabitess, was part of the family.

Naomi knew that Boaz would be at the threshing floor that night (3:2). She told Ruth to
make herself as presentable to Boaz as she could. “Wash and perfume yourself, and put
on your best clothes” (3:3). Then she was to go to the threshing floor but not let Boaz
know of her presence until he had finished eating and was settled down for the night.
Only then was she to approach him. Naomi assured Ruth, “He will tell you what to do”
(3:4). The writer tells us that Ruth was careful to follow her mother-in-law’s instructions
to the letter; she “did everything her mother-in-law told her to do” (3:6). She really had
no choice but to follow Naomi’s instructions, since she was still unfamiliar with local
customs. And she had to be careful in order not exceed the bounds of propriety. The
purpose of this procedure was to signify Ruth’s desire to marry Boaz. It is very important
that we recognize that this was a sensitive procedure, and yet one in which all parties
acted above reproach. Ruth went to the threshing floor and waited in obedience to
Naomi’s counsel.

“I am your servant Ruth (verses 7-13).

The threshing floor was a flat, raised area in the vicinity of the fields. It was packed down
so the ground was firm enough for the work to be done on it, and it was out in the open
where the wind could freely blow across it. On the threshing floor the grain was broken
loose from the husks by being walked on by animals or crushed with large stones. Then it
was tossed into the air so that the wind would blow the husks and chaff toward one side
of the threshing floor while the grain fell closer by into its own pile. It was advisable for
the workers to stay with the harvest until all the grain had been winnowed and carried
away to storage, lest it be stolen at night or perhaps damaged by wild animals. There may
have been a note of urgency in Naomi’s counsel here in view of the possibility that the
work could soon be finished and Boaz would leave the area. Evidently the winnowing
process was well along because when Boaz settled down for the night “he went over to
lie down at the far end of the grain pile” (3:7). “Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his
feet and lay down” – “quietly,” like David when he “cut off a corner of Saul’s robe” (I
Samuel 24:4).

“In the middle of the night” Boaz was awakened to realize someone was nearby, “and he
turned and discovered a woman lying at his feet” (3:8). He inquired who she was and she
promptly made herself known, proceeding immediately to her request. The KJV more
literally includes the word “therefore” in her request. “I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread
therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman” (3:9). Because of
who she was, Ruth believed that she had legitimate grounds for her approach. The word
“skirt” is the same as “wings” in 2:12. Boaz knew that Ruth had taken refuge under the
“wings” of the Lord God of Israel, and now she was seeking refuge under the “wings” of
Boaz. A similar expression is used in Ezekiel 16:8 to show that this was symbolic of
taking a woman in marriage. Boaz responded to Ruth’s proposal by pronouncing the
Lord’s blessing on her and by acknowledging her “kindness” (3:10). The same word for
“kindness” was used in 2:20 and 1:8. Here, Boaz was especially impressed that Ruth did
not “run after the younger men, whether rich or poor.” He promised that he would
perform everything she asked and declared, “All my fellow townsmen know that you are
a woman of noble character” (3:11). We have already seen that a similar description was
given of Boaz as “a man of standing” (2:1). Here it echoes the profile of the model
woman in the Proverbs:

“A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in
his bones” (Proverbs 12:4).

“A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies…Many
women do noble things, but you surpass them all” (Proverbs 31:10,29).

Clearly Ruth had established an honorable reputation among the inhabitants of

Bethlehem. Literally Boaz was referring to “all the gate of my people,” though the KJV
renders it “all the city of my people.” The NIV brings out the best sense, but Boaz could
have had in mind the influential elders who would soon have to witness the case at the
town gate. Boaz also calmed her nervousness by telling her not to be afraid. He was
assuring her that she need not think that her Moabite nationality, or anything else, would
stand in the way of his determination to grant her request. The only consideration was a
nearer kinsman (“close relative” in 2:20) who must first be approached. Naomi must have
known about this nearer relative and said nothing about him. But Boaz made it clear (“as
surely as the Lord lives”) that the matter would be resolved immediately the next day if at
all possible, and that he was prepared to be the kinsman-redeemer (3:12,13). In these two
verses the word for “kinsman-redeemer” appears six times.

“Wait, my daughter, until you find out what happens” (verses 14-18).

In accordance with Boaz’ instructions Ruth remained through the night and rose to leave
very early before there was enough light to be seen or recognized. No sin had been
committed, and Boaz did not want anyone to have any reason to think otherwise. In fact,
it could be that when he said, “Don’t let it be known that a woman came to the threshing
floor,” he was talking to himself (3:14). More likely than not, it was a prayer to God.
Before sending her on her way, Boaz gave her six measures of barley to take along with
her. Literally, it was “six of barley,” so we cannot know how much it was, but it was
enough that Boaz had to “put it on her” (3:15). When Ruth finally made her way home,
according to the KJV Naomi asked, “Who art thou, my daughter?” (3:16). It must have
still been dark. “Then she told her everything Boaz had done for her,” and came to the
part about the barley. When Ruth reported that Boaz had said, “Don’t go back to your
mother-in-law empty-handed” (3:17), she used the same word spoken earlier by Naomi
when she said, “the Lord has brought me back empty” (1:21). She had good reason to
hope that her days of “emptiness” were coming to an end. Naomi’s concluding directions
to Ruth are suggestive of greater things than those of which she spoke. “Wait, my
daughter, until you find out what happens. For the man will not rest until the matter is
settled today” (3:18). This was proven true in the case of Boaz, but how much more so
with Jesus Christ. He did not rest until he had finished the work of our eternal redemption
(Hebrews 9:12).

Chapter 4: The Marriage and Beyond

“If you will redeem it, do so” (verses 1-8).

“Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate and sat there” (4:1). It was there that Boaz
planned to resolve the issue once and for all and see to it that the duty of kinsman-
redeemer was settled for Naomi’s family. In ancient times, the place for conducting any
sort of legal business was generally at the gate of the city or town. The gate area provided
a forum in which business could be carried on publicly and in the presence of witnesses.
In some cases, even the execution of law-breakers took place there (Deuteronomy
22:15,24). But on a less extreme level, the gate became associated with any sort of
transaction that required public attestation. It was a matter of contention between the
Lord and Israel that justice was not being done in the gates, especially with regard to the
poor and oppressed (Amos 5:10,12,15; Proverbs 22:22). There was also the important
fact that, by entering into a dispute or transaction at the town gate, one was putting his
reputation on the line and exposing himself to public scrutiny. These factors are basic to
understanding the importance of godly children in Psalm 127:5:

“Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when
they contend with their enemies in the gate.”

So here was Boaz taking his place at the town gate. Soon the nearer kinsman happened
along. Boaz promptly hailed him and asked the man to sit down with him. According to
the KJV, Boaz said, “Ho, such a one! Turn aside, sit down here.” The man complied with
Boaz’ request and ten respected elders of the town were also summoned to hear the case
(4:2). Boaz began by broaching the subject of a piece of land that Naomi was offering for
sale. He explained that it was “the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech”
(4:3). Obviously Elimelech was not their immediate brother, but a member of the family.
This was the first reference to the land, and it was probably shrewdness or tact on the part
of Boaz that led him to speak of this part of the transaction first. The KJV has Boaz
saying, “And I thought to advertise thee” (4:4). The expression means “to uncover your
ear,” in the sense of disclosing the matter or informing the man about it. This must have
been land that had become her sons’ inheritance, and Naomi was therefore acting in their
behalf in selling it. Boaz’ appeal was based on the principle that family land was
supposed to remain in the family. This was foundational to Naboth’s refusal to sell his
property to King Ahab. Naboth’s informed the king, “The Lord forbid that I should give
you the inheritance of my fathers” (I Kings 21:3). If land had to be sold it should be
redeemed and restored to the family ownership. The year of jubilee guaranteed this
redemption in the event it could not be bought back (Leviticus 25:28). In any case, the
nearer kinsman immediately upon learning of this opportunity, agreed to redeem it (4:4).
In other words, he would purchase it in order to keep it in the family. In this way, both he
and Naomi would derive some benefit from the property.

The next item of business proved to be the stumbling block:

“On the day you buy the land from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, you acquire the
dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property” (4:5).

Although there are questions about how this verse should be translated, it is at least clear
that both Ruth and Naomi were part of the transaction that Boaz was discussing. Clearly
Naomi was “the dead man’s widow,” but so was Ruth the widow of Elimelech’s son. And
it has already been established that Naomi could not “maintain the name of the dead with
his property” (1:12). In other words, it would have to be through Ruth that Elimelech
would have an heir. Whatever the nearer kinsman understood about all this, he was not
prepared to go ahead with any arrangement that involved such a commitment. He flatly
declined saying, “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate”
(4:6). It was not that he would not, but that he could not, or so he claimed. He perceived
that the land would not remain in his estate, but would revert to Ruth’s son. In other
words, it would cost him too much and gain him nothing. Perhaps too he could not get
out of his mind the troubling thought that Ruth was “the Moabitess.” In the end, he
relinquished his right of redemption to Boaz and stated his position again lest there
remain any doubt: “I cannot do it.”

At this point the author of the Book of Ruth inserted an explanation about what happened
next. The procedure that took place did not exactly fit the details of the law of levirate
marriage described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. But this should indicate to us that the law
was apparently subject to application and adaptation. Even though the removal of the
sandal is described in both passages, the symbolism of it was markedly different. In this
case, it was “the method of legalizing transactions in Israel” (4:7). When the nearer
kinsman “removed his sandal,” it signified in the presence of witnesses that he was
passing his right of redemption to Boaz (4:8).

“Today you are witnesses” (verses 9-12).

Boaz called for “the elders and all the people” to witness his summation and conclusion
of the matter by declaring that he was buying the property of all three men – Elimelech,
Kilion, and Mahlon (4:9). He was announcing his intention to assume full responsibility
for the family name. In addition to that, he stated his intention to marry Ruth. This was
the first and only time in the story that Ruth was identified as the wife of Mahlon (4:10).
Both sons and both the wives were named in the first chapter, but who was married to
whom was not specified until now. Boaz was publicly announcing his intention to fulfill
the role of kinsman-redeemer, and he offered a two-part explanation for his actions. First,
“in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.” He wanted to provide an
heir for Elimelech. Second, “so that his name will not disappear from among his family
or from the town records.” He wanted to insure that Elimelech’s name would be
perpetuated, both in the family (“his brethren – KJV) and in the community (“the gate of
his place – KJV). Boaz reminded them again that they were witnesses to a legally binding
agreement.

The response of the elders is most interesting and should impress us with their very
favorable attitude toward the proceedings. It may indicate an improved opinion about
Ruth’s status in the covenant community. At the same time, however, even though their
comments were filled with nothing but blessing and well wishing, it is curious that they
did not use her name, but referred to her as “the woman who is coming into your home”
(4:11). As they voiced their approval they expressed their hope that the Lord would make
Ruth “like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.” As for Boaz,
“May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem.” The first part of this
blessing echoes the first introduction of Boaz as “a man of standing” (2:1). To “be
famous” is literally to “call name,” suggesting the idea that the name of Boaz would
become more widely known and respected. The same expression appears with reference
to Obed at the end of 4:14.

The blessing of the elders upon Boaz also included a reference to Perez, Tamar, and
Judah (4:12), whose story is told in Genesis 38. This seems strange in view of the scandal
surrounding the birth of Perez. Nevertheless, Perez was the prominent link between Boaz
and Judah. What is more, the elders focused on “the offspring/seed the Lord gives you by
this young woman.” As the genealogical sequel demonstrates, the Lord God of Israel has
always preserved “the seed” promised in Genesis 3:15. His assurance to Abraham was
that “through your offspring/seed all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 22:18).
This seed would now be channeled through the line of David, the great grandson of Boaz.
The Gospel of Matthew begins with the words, “A record of the genealogy of Jesus
Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). It is a genealogy of men and
women whose lives were defiled by sin, but God preserved the seed. It all prepares us for
the fact that Christ not only “was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7 – KJV),
but that God sent him “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3 – KJV). He became
our kinsman so that he could be our redeemer.

“So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife” (verses 13-22).

The events that transpired so far had not constituted a marriage. It still remained for the
wedding to take place. The KJV obscures this somewhat with its “and she was his wife”
(4:13). The son eventually born to Ruth and Boaz was regarded as having been given by
God because “the Lord enabled her to conceive.” The witnesses at the gate had already
expressed what has always been the conviction of God’s people that children are given by
God (4:12). The women in particular gave praise to the Lord because they knew that, in a
sense, this son came as a blessing to Naomi, too. The Lord would perpetuate the family
name through him because she was not left “without a kinsman-redeemer” (4:14). In a
way, they spoke more than they knew when they added, “May he become famous
throughout Israel!” In the distant future Obed’s name would appear with the names of his
parents in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world (Matthew 1:5). Even
though Boaz has repeatedly been identified as the kinsman-redeemer, it appears that the
women had the new baby in mind here. Obed would likely take care of Naomi in her old
age and assume responsibility for the family property (4:15).

Naomi’s women friends also paid tribute to the love and faithfulness of Ruth in a way
that echoed the recognition she already had achieved (3:11), but still they did not speak
her name. They acknowledged the fact that through Ruth the Moabitess God was
compensating Naomi for the great losses she had suffered. Given the importance of sons
in the Israelite family, they were not sparing of their praise for Ruth when they said she
was “better to you than seven sons.” The fact that “Naomi took the child, laid him in her
lap and cared for him” indicated that she regarded the baby as in some sense her own and
that she felt a special closeness to him (4:16). The women are said to have given the baby
the name, Obed, which means “servant” (4:17). This was an unusual departure from
biblical custom, which normally reserved the naming of children to the immediate family.

The Book of Ruth concludes with a genealogy of David (4:18-22). The KJV uses the
phrase “these are the generations of,” an expression reminiscent of the Book of Genesis
(Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9). Its purpose is to give an account of a man and his descendants.
This genealogy begins with Perez who was earlier noted as the son of Judah (4:12). Boaz
and Elimelech both belonged to the family of Perez. But Obed’s name was entered not as
the son either of Elimelech or Mahlon, but of Boaz: “Boaz the father of Obed, whose
mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David” (4:21,22).
Despite the dictate of the Mosaic Law noted earlier in connection with 1:1-5
(Deuteronomy 23:3-6), the name of a Moabite woman was forever established in Israel,
in the genealogy of David, and in the human ancestry of David’s Greater Son.

“Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from
David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ…Joseph, son of
David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her
is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:17,20,21).

The role of kinsman-redeemer was destined to be fulfilled in an unprecedented way in the

person and work of Jesus Christ. He who is God became our kinsman in order to redeem
us from the hopeless and helpless condition in which he found us (Galatians 4:4,5;
Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 2:14,15). He took the initiative with us, seeking and saving
the lost (Luke 15:3-10; 19:10). He redeemed us when we were aliens, outcasts,
undesirables, even enemies of God (Romans 5:6-10; Colossians 1:21). He appeared on
the scene at just the right time as the one who is able, willing, and authorized to redeem
(John 1:10-14; 3:14-16; Acts 4:12). And like his ancestor Boaz, though in a much greater
way, he did not rest until the work of redemption was fully accomplished (Romans 3:24; I
Corinthians 1:30; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:7,14; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12).