Judges, Ruth: Revised Edition (The NIV Application Commentary)

by K. Lawson Younger

There is a difference of opinion regarding how this phrase should be translated. The following are the three possibilities: if anything but death separates you and me (NIV 1984) if even death separates you and me (NIV 2011; RSV; Campbell, Ruth, 74–75; Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, 119–20) nothing but death will separate me from you (Bush, Ruth, Esther, 82–83) Whatever the case, the essence of the oath is that only death will separate Ruth from Naomi. This statement has significant emotional ties to the loss through death that both women have recently experienced and thus demonstrates that Ruth’s commitment to Naomi transcends even the bonds of racial origin and national religion: Naomi’s people (‘am) and Naomi’s God will henceforth be hers to the end. With such a speech of affirmation, Naomi realizes that Ruth is determined74 to go with her, so she stops urging her to leave and go back to Moab. All the power of Naomi’s logic and argument has been ineffective. Ruth’s faith defies human logic and wisdom.75 It is easy to underestimate how unlikely Ruth’s response was in this ancient 76context, a world where women typically sought fulfillment through marriage and childbirth.

This question of the women is followed by Naomi’s sarcastic double response, in which she utilizes two wordplays on her name, the first in the form of a command and the second in the form of a question. In the first wordplay (v. 20), she denies the meaning of her name, demanding that she be called Mara, “Bitter” (mara’ comes from the root marar, “to be bitter”), instead of the antonym “Naomi” (“pleasant, beautiful, good”).79 In the second wordplay (v. 21b1), she employs a rhetorical question (“why”) that is intended to reject the identity that her name implies. Both wordplays give the twofold reasons for the denial of her name in the design of a couplet. The two couplets, in turn, form a chiasm A:B and B':A'. A and A' utilize the divine name “Shaddai”80 and are parallel in structure and content; B and B' are parallel in their use of the divine name “Yahweh,” although they are different in structure and content. In B, Naomi states (author’s lit. trans.): “Full was I when I went away; but empty has Yahweh brought me back.” The emphasis is clearly on full (mele’ah) and empty (reqam). The two statements are chiastic.81 In B', the expression ‘anah be- means “to respond/speak against.” It is usually used in a juridical context, where it has the technical force “to testify against” (e.g., Exod 20:16; Num 35:30). The NIV’s “afflicted” attempts to capture this nuance. In Hebrew thought, one’s name was often understood to be expressive of one’s character, being, and personality. Thu...

In urging the women of Bethlehem to call her “Mara” (“Bitter”) “because the Almighty [Shaddai] has made my life very bitter [hemar],”82 there is an interesting parallel in one of Job’s speeches in which he states: As surely as God lives, who has denied me justice, the Almighty [Shadday], who has made my life bitter [hemar]. (Job 27:2) In addition, Naomi’s feeling that Yahweh is making her a target for his arrows is also paralleled by a feeling that Job expresses: The arrows of the Almighty [Shadday] are in me, my spirit drinks in their poison; God’s terrors are marshaled against me. (Job 6:4)

Not only has Naomi returned home; so has Ruth. Naomi has returned home empty, unfulfilled, and bitter. Her journey has been a journey into the depths, and she can see nothing else. But there is more. In Naomi’s anguished response to the delighted cries of the women of Bethlehem—all absorbed in her own world of pain and bitter affliction—she fails even to acknowledge Ruth’s presence with her, a presence whose accomplishment transcends the call of religion and home and hope! Her whole complaint is voiced in the singular: “bitter indeed has the Almighty made my life . . . empty has Yahweh brought me back . . . the Almighty has pronounced disaster upon me!” (vv. 20–21, author’s translation, emphasis added).

In a subtle touch of the narrator, Naomi utters her complaint as though Ruth, whose words of loving commitment still ring in the readers’ ears, has never pronounced these words at all! Yahweh has indeed not brought Naomi back empty, and the final word to this effect lies with the narrator when, in his closing summation, he gives all the prominence to describing Ruth’s arrival as a “return.”84 Thus, “we know that Naomi is not alone and will not be.”85

The timing is providential (one more example of Yahweh’s sovereignty), for this means that the barley and wheat harvests are just beginning to take place (late April–early May by our calendars).

Moab, where the god Chemosh reigns (so to speak), may not be experiencing famine when Elimelek and his family seek shelter there, but its fields will eventually kill a father and his sons and render their wives sterile and widowed. Behind these forces, so to speak, is the God of circumstances and situations—Yahweh, Israel’s covenant-keeping God. He is equally as faithful in keeping his covenant with regard to its curses as he is with regard to its blessings.

During the period of the judges, the Israelites lacked faith in Yahweh and broke his covenant (Judg 2:1–5, 10–23). As seen in Judges, God chastened his people in accordance with his promised curses. He expected his people to live according to his word in the land he had given them and not to go and live in another land when difficult times arose. This will was clearly revealed in his word. Elimelek, like many Israelites of his day, lacked the faith to trust God in the midst of this famine. The move to Moab was highly unusual and was outside of God’s revealed will. Ironically, Elimelek parts with a field (sadeh) in Bethlehem, in the promised land, to live in the field (sadeh) of Moab. Furthermore, the marriages of his sons were outside of God’s revealed will for his people.

All of this brought disaster on the family of Elimelek and his sons. In addition, the infertility was no accident. In light of God’s covenant stipulations, this was not simply incidental bad luck or fate. Thus, the outcomes of these tragedies were truly disastrous for Naomi. She suffered because of decisions that were not necessarily hers. Yet the same sovereign Lord has already begun a process whereby Naomi will not only survive but will ...

There are three human issues in the narration of the prologue that transcend time: aloneness, hopelessness in suffering,86 and the plight of old age. Not only does Naomi suffer loneliness, but that loneliness is intensified in this short background narrative. Such loneliness is not unique to Naomi’s situation in ancient Moab, nor is the double bereavement of husband and children. These, unfortunately, find modern analogues.

In Act 1 Naomi appears logical and practical. There is no reason to stay in Moab: no husband, no sons, no land, no food, no hope, no future—and she is a foreigner! The return to Bethlehem is logical. At least there is the clan to fall back on; moreover, there is food there now, so perhaps she can survive. If she remains much longer in Moab, she certainly will not survive. God has shut the doors on living in Moab any longer; there really isn’t any other option.

It is truly ironic that it is the Moabite widow, Ruth—who like Naomi has lost her husband—who evinces this kind of commitment to Yahweh rather than the Israelite widow.

The pain and anxiety, however, have indeed blurred her perception. Like many of Job’s speeches, Naomi’s anguished, reactive speech to the women of Bethlehem demonstrates one of the unfortunate truths of suffering: In the midst of pain, there is often self-absorption. It is “my” pain. Her entire complaint is singular in its orientation: “Bitter has the Almighty [Shaddai] made my life; empty has Yahweh brought me back; the Almighty [Shaddai] has pronounced disaster upon me!” (Ruth 1:20–21, author’s translation). Such self-absorption in the midst of pain and affliction is understandable. Yet it always blinds a person from God’s greater plan and the small ways in which God may be working this plan out.

although both Naomi and Job are wrong in their assessments of God’s actions, neither suffers because of their accusations of God’s determined punishment on them.

There are times in the life of every individual when loneliness sets in. There are two kinds of loneliness: one that we feel when there is literally no one around, and one we feel when we are with people but unable to really communicate the longings or struggles of the heart. Thus, no matter how many friends one has or how happy a marriage or how connected to the children, there are times when we all feel lonely. It is not necessary that we have gone through the same exact experience of Naomi in order to feel the depths of her aloneness, hopelessness, and despair. For the most part, we attempt to fill the void. We have work activities and family activities and all kinds of other activities to keep going and fill that void. We have dreams and goals and achievements that keep us focused. Yet, in the quiet place of the soul can be found that sense of loneliness, that sense of “I’m not sure I fit,” of “I don’t feel understood or appreciated.” When the things with which we have filled our lives are removed, the void caused by aloneness screams out. That void can only be soothed by one relationship—relationship with Jesus Christ.

Verse 1 serves as a parenthetical digression in which one of the major characters is proleptically introduced. The name is withheld to the last possible moment. He is described first in relationship to Naomi, “a relative2 on her husband’s side.” It was necessary to state that Naomi had a relative on her husband’s side of the family in order to make clear that the blood relationship is with her husband and not with her (since Israelite marriage was endogamous). This relative is further described as “a man of standing” (’ish gibbor hayil), from the family/clan of Elimelek. The phrase ’ish gibbor hayil is difficult to translate into English. The word gibbor comes from a root meaning “mighty” and is frequently translated “warrior.” The word hayil can mean “strength, power, ability, capability, wealth,” and its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. In a military setting it refers to a warrior, particularly one who has distinguished himself in armed combat. In other contexts, it can refer to wealth (2 Kings 15:20) or ability (1 Kings 11:28). It designates one who possesses social standing and a good reputation. In this context, it connotes not only wealth and status but also ability, honor, and capability.3 Thus it is clearly used as a description of character4 (cf. Ruth’s description below as an ’eshet hayil, 3:11).

The family/clan (mishpahah)5 of Elimelek is stated earlier as the Ephrathites (see comments on 1:2 below). These were undoubtedly kinsmen, although the relationship is relatively distant, since it was the bet’ab (“father’s house,” i.e., the extended family) that contained the more closely related kin group. The mishpahah was the most important single group in the social structure in ancient Israel and formed the basis for the functions of the go’el (“kinsman-redeemer”; see comments in the Introduction to Ruth, pp. 498–503).

Verse 2 picks up the story where Ruth 1:22 left off. Ruth, the Moabite—once again a reminder of her foreign and generally despised status—makes her request to Naomi to go to the fields and glean ears of grain. Although the law (Lev 19:9–10; 23:22; Deut 24:19–21) provided a legal right to glean specifically to the poor, the resident alien, the widow, and the orphan, it is clear from other passages that these people were not always granted permission to glean.7 Hence, the simplest understanding of Ruth’s words in the last clause of verse 2 “behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor” is that “she wants to glean behind someone who would benevolently allow it.”8

In the Old Testament, God established at least two ways through which widows could have their needs met. (1) On a yearly basis, special considerations in the harvesting of fields, orchards, and vineyards were to be followed. Deuteronomy 24:19–22 delineates these: When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

(2) A second means of provision was established through the third-year tithe. Thus Deuteronomy 14:28–29 (cf. also 26:12–15) states: At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

Don’t go and glean in another field; 2. and don’t go away from here; 3. stay here with [lit., stick close to, dabaq] my servant girls; 4. watch the field where the men [and girls] are harvesting; 5. and follow along after the girls; 6. I have told [ordered] the men not to touch you (naga‘)24 [or, hoot at you]; 7. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled. From these statements, it is possible to conclude: • (from points 1–3) that Ruth was leaving the field as Boaz arrived, • (from points 4–6) that something done to her by the male reapers has made her uncomfortable enough to leave, and • (from point 7) that Ruth’s attempt to get a drink of water had provided the occasion for the young male reapers’ action.

Furthermore, had she ended up in another field, her situation may have been much worse.29 Ruth is not just a single woman gleaning on the edges; she is a female foreign worker. Given human nature, it would be naïve to think she is not harassed and even in danger (given the last stories in the book of Judges, the period in which the book of Ruth is set).30 Shepherd has commented that like modern female foreign workers, Ruth too is invisible to the dominant culture, a point [illustrated by the fact] . . . that neither Naomi nor the Bethlehem women acknowledge Ruth’s existence in concrete terms. What we have suggested here is that while Ruth and other female foreign workers may well be invisible to other women in the dominant culture, they are often conspicuously and dangerously visible to men within the dominant culture—some of whom give them good reasons for wishing that they were not.31

In his seven statements Boaz is granting her more than the ordinary rights of gleanage.32 Ruth must be careful not to inadvertently glean in some other field adjoining Boaz’s property. She is to glean in that portion of the field normally off limits to poor gleaners. In order to help ensure this, Boaz instructs her to stick close to his young women workers, and he instructs his workers not to interfere with (lit., touch) her. Finally, if she is thirsty, she can drink from the more immediately available water jars rather than seek refreshment elsewhere and lose time in gleaning. Normally in the ancient Near East, foreigners would draw water for Israelites, and women would draw it for men. Thus Boaz’s provision is extraordinary.33 Verse 10 records Ruth’s reaction and reply. Overwhelmed by Boaz’s unexpected protection and generosity, she falls to the ground. This gesture consists of dropping to the knees and touching the forehead to the ground. As Gruber has shown, this nonverbal gesture is often used as a posture expressing gratitude.34 Ruth asks why she has found such favor with him that he has paid any attention (lehakkireni) to her—a foreign woman (nokriyah).35 There is a play on words between the two opposing meanings of lhkyr (to recognize, pay attention to) and nkryh (foreign woman).36 This wordplay heightens Ruth’s surprise reaction to Boaz’s graciousness: “Why have I found such favor in your eyes that you notice me—a foreign woman!?” (nokriyah often has negative conn...

Boaz’s reply is the high point of the scene (vv. 11–12).38 In a concise and straightforward manner, permeated with praise and admiration, he affirms what Ruth has solemnly vowed to Naomi in her stirring words of commitment in Moab (1:16–17): “You left [‘azab, abandoned] your father and mother and your homeland [moledet] and came to live with a people you did not know before” (2:11).39 Boaz then wishes that Yahweh will “repay” (shlm) Ruth for her actions and prays that she may “be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (v. 12). Boaz specifies that Yahweh is the God “under whose wings” (kenapim) Ruth has sought refuge/asylum. The word kanap can mean “wing” or “corner of a garment.” In 2:12 it connotes the image of a bird tenderly protecting its young. Like a defenseless starling, Ruth sits securely under Yahweh’s mighty wings.40

Ruth refers to herself here as “servant” (shiphah), although she does not really even have this status (she is officially a nokriyah). Although shiphah and ’amah (another word translated “maidservant” or “servant girl,” which Ruth uses in 3:9, see comments below, pp. 580–81) are frequently synonymous, it appears that shiphah, when used distinctively, is the more deferential term since it refers to women belonging to the lowest rung of the social ladder (cf. 1 Sam 25:41).41 The term is thus an expression of Ruth’s humility.

Part A' of this episode (vv. 15–16) consists of a conversation between Boaz and his workers about Ruth and her gleaning. When Ruth resumes gleaning, Boaz orders his workers to let her glean between the sheaves themselves without trouble45 and even commands them without fail to pull out stalks of grain from the handfuls the men cut and leave them behind for her—an unheard-of favor. He concludes by charging them once again not to drive her away.46

The narrative prologue sets the stage for the exclamatory dialogue that ensues (vv. 17b–18). Verse 17b stresses the large quantity of grain Ruth has threshed47 from her gleanings in the field of Boaz—“an ephah” (v. 17) of barley. Commentators, with the exception of Sasson,48 usually give some kind of conversion figure for an ephah and end at that. Nielsen in her commentary concludes: “Of course, the important thing is not to find out exactly the actual weight but to be overwhelmed by Boaz’s generosity to Ruth.”49 While the text is obviously giving this data in order to demonstrate Boaz’s hesed toward the two widows, Ruth and Naomi, what are the practical, real-life implications? Certainly this note about the significant amount of grain gleaned by Ruth is not given to the reader in order “to add to her list of virtues that she was as strong as an ox.”50 It must have had some tangible, utilitarian value. An ephah was one-tenth of a homer. A homer was apparently the amount that one donkey could carry, which lies somewhere about ninety kilograms (two hundred pounds), fixing the assload of barley at about one hundred fifty liters or the assload of wheat at about one hundred twenty liters. Even allowing for uncertainties and upward adjustment by redefinition of norms, the natural assload can hardly have exceeded two hundred liters. Because of diachronic and political circumstances, it seems likely that there were a number of homer norms in the preexilic period. The probable para...

At the end of this two-month period, 2:23b stresses that Ruth is still living with her mother-in-law. This is significant to the plot of the story. The ancient readers (well aware of the length of time involved in the agricultural year) would have quickly recognized that Ruth has gleaned for both the barley and wheat harvests in the fields of Boaz (where presumably there was further contact with Boaz), but there has been no development in their relationship. What looked like a clear solution to their widowed situation seems to have died out. While the provision of food is significant to their immediate need and somewhat beyond, it does not solve the long-term problem of their destitute widowhood. What appeared to be a promising relationship has evaporated. Ruth and Naomi still live together in the same status as when the chapter opened.60

is not in some religious setting that Ruth or Boaz manifest their hesed. Rather, it is in the daily workplace, the place where too often hesed is lacking. Such manifestations of hesed are the result of commitment to the Lord, and both Ruth and Boaz exhibit hesed qualities to those around them. Certainly the writer intends that his readers (both ancient and modern) look to these two individuals as didactic models for life.

In the present-day global context, it is easy to overlook the foreign workers in our midst. Certainly, single, female, foreign workers are the most vulnerable. The number of people living in a country other than their country of birth has increased 49 percent since the year 2000;67 many of these people are migrants, and a significant number are women. Many of these women become victims of discrimination, exploitation, and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.68 While the book of Ruth was not written as a pro- or anti-migration text, and this is certainly not its primary message, how Boaz treats Ruth is nevertheless very informative to this current issue.

Throughout the world, women and girls are increasingly being abused. The statistics are staggering. In the case of human trafficking, 70 percent of those trafficked into servitude are women and girls; 99 percent of those in sex slavery are women and girls; 250 million girls are forced into child marriage; and 1 in 3 women and girls experience physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime.69 As Christians, as one writer has aptly remarked: The time for ministering to abused women and girls is now. The time to work for structural change that will improve the lives of women and girls is now. The time to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves because of oppressive systems that deny their human dignity is now.70

In the first instance (1), the text literally reads: “My daughter, should I not seek for you a home [manoah], where you will be well provided for?” The word manoah here means “a place of tranquility and repose” and refers to the condition of security and rest afforded a woman in Israelite society by marriage (cf. 1:9).1

Commentators are split as to what is implied in this initial question of Naomi.2 Is she concerned with providing an heir for the family line of Elimelek, or is she simply concerned (in a general sense) with Ruth’s welfare? In other words, is she proposing here a levirate marriage that will possibly provide an heir or simply a marriage that will relieve Ruth of her destitute widowhood and provide security for her? The latter seems to be the primary focus of Naomi. Hubbard observes: Besides seeing Ruth happily settled, Naomi probably also wanted to provide for Ruth’s uncertain fate after Naomi’s death. It would be one thing for Ruth to endure widowhood in a strange land during Naomi’s lifetime, quite another to do so after she was gone.3

Winnowing (or threshing) barley consisted of throwing the mixture of straw, chaff, and grain up into the wind by means of a fork with large teeth. The chaff was blown away farthest from the winnower, the straw less far, while the heavier kernels of grain fell back onto the threshing floor.7

Naomi formulates a risky and fragile scheme. She instructs Ruth to do three things: bathe, put on perfumed oil, and put on her “dress” (simlah). The NIV translates simlah as “best clothes.” However, as Bush and others have rightly observed, the simlah was simply a generic piece of clothing worn by both men and women (although there were apparently differences between the two, Deut 22:5).8

(2) When he lies down, Ruth is to note that place and then go and uncover his feet (or legs)10 and lie down close beside him (probably not simply “at his feet,” as is often understood),11 so that “both lie beside one another as husband and wife.”12 That sexual overtones are present in the action of a woman uncovering a man’s legs in the dark of the night and lying down, there can be no doubt. But that our author intends the explicitly sexual sense of “uncover his genitals and lie down” is in my opinion utterly improbable.13 At every turn, Ruth is depicted as an honorable woman, and so the narrator is not implying otherwise here. (3) Thus, Ruth’s action of uncovering Boaz’s legs and lying down is a nonverbal, apparently customary means of requesting marriage. That this is the case is reinforced by Naomi’s final instruction: “He will tell you what to do” (3:4). Ruth’s response demonstrates her willingness to engage in this risky endeavor: “I will do whatever you say” (v. 5). It should be remembered that things could go wrong in the plan. For example, Boaz could mock her request for marriage to him—a wealthy and powerful Israelite landowner—as a vain attempt at social climbing for a poor widowed Moabite woman. Or, since Ruth has not secured a new marriage contract and is technically still the wife of Mahlon (cf. 4:5, 10), Boaz could charge her with failing in her family responsibilities, branding her an adulteress. Or even worse, Boaz could use the night’s opportunity for his...

SCENE 2 IS ENCLOSED BY TWO STATEMENTS: “So she went down to the threshing floor” (3:6), and “then he went back to town” (v. 15). It takes place at the threshing floor during the evening, midnight, and dawn, with Ruth executing Naomi’s plan and Boaz offering to be the kinsman-redeemer. The scene divides basically into two parts: Ruth’s implementation of Naomi’s plan (vv. 6–9) and Boaz’s response to the plan (vv. 10–15). It is chiastically arranged:14

The utter surprise of Boaz is captured in the narration. Quite naturally he probingly exclaims: “Who are you?” (v. 9). Ruth’s words are carefully chosen. She begins by identifying herself: “I am your servant [’amah] Ruth.” Earlier in 2:13, Ruth referred to herself as Boaz’s shiphah, although she does not really have even this status (she is officially a nokriyah, “foreign woman”; see comments on 2:13, pp. 559–60). Now she uses ’amah; the choice of the socially higher term is doubtless Ruth’s attempt to suggest that she is within the class of women who might be married. This word emphasizes her non-slave status yet her humility in respect to Boaz, while shiphah seems to be used when the female is viewed as a possession and a laborer17 and would appear to be the inappropriate term for Ruth to have used.

Boaz’s first words are a blessing: “The LORD bless you, my daughter” (v. 10). He then states: “This kindness [hesed] is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor.” Literally the Hebrew reads, “You have made your last hesed better than the first.” Ruth’s first act of hesed obviously refers to her compassionate loyalty and kindness to Naomi, which Boaz has already noted (2:11). Ruth’s latest hesed, in this context, seems to refer to her proposal of marriage to Boaz. This is evident from the second clause where Boaz asserts, “You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor” (3:10). That Ruth could have sought marriage with any of the men of the town means that she is under no legal obligation to become the wife of Mahlon’s closest relative in order to raise up an heir for her dead husband (i.e., to carry out the levirate as prescribed in Deut 25:5–10). And vice versa, the closest relative of Mahlon is not obligated to perform a levirate marriage—and apparently none of the relatives (close or otherwise) has given any thought to implementing a marriage to Ruth.29

Ruth’s deeds and words at the threshing floor are honorable. Her motives are pure. She simply follows Naomi’s instructions in what was apparently a customary way of making a marriage proposal. Why does Ruth take the initiative in this matter? Boaz himself comprehends one reason: age. Boaz is older vis-à-vis Ruth, and so Boaz has assumed that she will not be interested in marriage to him. Another reason is tied to the change of clothing that Naomi orders; that is, Ruth needs to put away the signals of widowhood and demonstrate that she is available. In any case, Boaz’s reaction to Ruth’s deeds and words shows that he interprets them as nothing but honorable.

Campbell states: Here, as there [2:4], the scene is set (Boaz taking his place at the gate), whereupon at just the right moment along comes just the right person. Commentators who point out that virtually every male in town was bound to go out through the gate at some time during the morning on the way to work in the field are missing the impact of the Hebrew construction, which at least in Gen 24:15 and in Ruth conveys a hint of God’s working behind the scenes.2

Boaz calls to this individual to come over and sit down (“Come over here, my friend [peloni ’almoni], and sit down”; v. 1). The NIV translation misses the impact of the sentence. The phrase peloni’almoni is an example of a wordplay termed farrago.3 The best translation is “So-and-So.” The same expression is used in 1 Samuel 21:2 and 2 Kings 6:8, where the narrator does not wish to give the name of the place, so that the translation “such and such a place” is appropriate.4 Taylor likens this to the English “Joe Schmoe”—a quite apt illustration of the Hebrew nuance.5 This phrase originates with the narrator, not with Boaz. Boaz would surely know the name of a fellow citizen in a small town like Bethlehem, not to mention a relative who is the go’el just prior to him. Consequently, the narrator is underscoring the namelessness of this man in order to create a less than favorable impression and is prompting the audience to suspect a pejorative purpose in the narrator’s choice of the expression.6 Therefore, to translate the expression as “my friend” is to obscure the narrator’s purposeful omission of the man’s name.7 A translation like “Mr. Such-and-Such” or “Joe Schmoe” is much more on target. Having called the man over, Boaz now procures ten elders of the city. This contrasts markedly with the way in which Boaz summoned the nearer relative. While he summoned this man over at the moment he passed through the gate, the text strongly suggests that Boaz does not simply wait in the...

First of all, it is clear that the text is not describing an outright sale of land by Naomi. Instead, this refers to a transaction in which only the right of use of the land is being transferred for a stipulated value (paid completely at the beginning of the deal) for a stipulated period of time (Lev 25:14–16). This is because the land of the family or clan could not be sold permanently (25:23; cf. 1 Kings 2:3). In this context, the word translated by the NIV “is selling” (makar) is best translated into English as “to surrender the right to.”11 It also seems best to understand (as the majority of scholars do) that Naomi must have inherited rights to the field of Elimelek. The proprietary rights to the land in the Old Testament were vested in the clan, with the individual only holding the right of possession and usufruct.12 Thus, a widow could only hold “usufructuary rights to her husband’s property,” and she did this “only until she married again or died in her turn, at which time the rights reverted to her husband’s clan in the normal order of inheritance.”13

Since Naomi “is selling” the field, only two broad scenarios are possible explanations: (1) Elimelek did not sell the usufruct of his field before moving to Moab. Due to Elimelek’s death, Naomi now possesses the usufructuary rights. As Naomi’s agent, Boaz is appealing to the nearer redeemer to obtain these usufructuary rights from her. Thus the transaction would be a case of preemption similar to the one in Jeremiah 32.14 (2) Elimelek sold the usufruct of his field15 before moving to Moab. The field’s usufruct has ever since been in the possession of a third party. Naomi, of course, has no means to repurchase the usufruct of the field, and so through Boaz she is making appeal to the nearer redeemer to obtain the field from its present owner. In this situation, the transaction would be a case of redemption similar to the one in Leviticus 25:25.16 In the context, this is the more likely scenario.17 Hence, Boaz appeals to the nearer redeemer to buy back the usufruct of Elimelek’s field from the unnamed third party.

Surely this nearer kinsman is aware of Naomi’s return (Ruth 1:19 states “when they [Naomi and Ruth] arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them”18). Thus, it seems apparent that he has not taken any initiative to help Naomi and/or Ruth. In other words, in contrast to Boaz, who had already functioned as a go’el of sorts for Naomi and Ruth, this man ha...

In all probability he knows about the field of Elimelek.19 So, if he quietly ignores his voluntary family responsibility (to redeem the field and marry Ruth, the only eligible widow of marriageable age), then he can negate the possibility of raising up an heir to the property of the deceased (see the discussion of the levirate in the Introduction to Ruth, pp. 498–503). Since there is no descendant of Elimelek, the field will, at a certain point, merge into his possession. Whatever the price paid for the redemption will be offset by the annual crop yields. There will also be some possible costs for the care of Naomi, but this, too, the ...

However, the levirate was indelibly linked to the inherited estate (nahalah).20 Where the land has already been alienated (as in the case of Elimelek), redemption of it triggers the levirate duty21 (cf. the discussion about the levirate in the Introduction to Ruth, pp. 498–503). Thus Boaz now publicly calls on the nearer redeemer to take on (lit., “you acquire”22) the voluntary family or clan responsibility of marrying Ruth ...

As Trible rightly notes, “Since he refused to ‘restore the name of the dead to his inheritance,’ he himself has no name. Anonymity implies judgment.”

However, her role as a foil to Ruth has been filled by the nearer redeemer as a foil to Boaz: But substitution means dissimilarity. Orpah had both name and speech (1:10). She decided to die to the story by returning to her own people, and the judgment upon her is favorable (1:15). The unnamed redeemer chooses to die to the story by returning to his own inheritance, and the judgment upon him is adverse. After all, he is not a foreign woman but the nearest male kin. Thus he passes away with the infamy of anonymity.34

While both Orpah and the nameless go’el are motivated by self-interest, Orpah’s is a self-interest that is humanly understandable; the nameless go’el’s is morally inexcusable. Quite simply, he has failed in every way in his go’el functions. The elders35 and all those at the gate declared their witness of the legal proceedings. They then pronounce a threefold blessing on Boaz (vv. 11–12): 1. “May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the family of Israel.” 2. “May you have standing [‘ase hayil] in Ephrathah and be famous [qara’ shem] in Bethlehem.” 3. May your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman.36