Kathleen A. Robertson Farmer wrote the Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections on the Book of Ruth for The New Interpreter’s Bible. She writes, “In form and function the book of Ruth closely resembles both the book of Jonah, and the story Nathan tells David in 2 Samuel 12. Like Nathan’s story, and like Jonah, Ruth has the power of revealing us to ourselves as we are rather than as we think we ought to be. But unlike Nathan’s story, Ruth and Jonah are not presented to us by a prophet who is willing and able to tell us who we are within the dynamics of the story.

Ruth is not a history book. It’s more like an extended parable. Names are symbolic and there’s a lot of word play. It can be easy to read this book and assume that we are meant to emulate Ruth. One mistake we make when interpreting scripture is when we identify a human hero and strive to be like them. Instead of asking, “Who should I be like in this story?” we can shift our questions to be, “What does this story tell me about God? What does this story tell me about humanity?”  As we go through Ruth, notice how the questions we ask affect our understanding of scripture.

A key theme in Ruth is redemption. Ruth is 83 verses long and the word “redeem” ga’al in Hebrew and its derivates “redeemer” and “redemption” show up 23 times. To redeem means to exchange something for value, regain possession of property, or compensate for a fault. Redemption is the act of saving, freeing, or regaining something, often through a cost, payment, or atonement. It generally refers to recovering something pledged, fulfilling a financial obligation, or, in a theological context, deliverance from sin. The term can also mean compensating for a fault, making amends, or releasing someone from captivity. Robertson Farmer writes, “Asking who or what is redeemed leads to the discovery that Naomi is the ultimate recipient of redemption in the story.”  Robertson Farmer argues that just as Israel is symbolized in Jonah’s person, Naomi is the character who “most closely mirrors the attitudes and experiences of the people of God, including both Israel and the church.”

If Naomi is the one who is redeemed, then Ruth is the agent or tool God uses to bring about Naomi’s redemption. BUT Ruth is a Moabite, an outsider. Ruth plays a role similar to the Samaritan in the parable of the Good Samaritan.  Robertson Farmer writes, “the story is primarily concerned with the faithfulness of God rather than with the faithfulness of the people of God. Redemption is based on grace, not merit. Redemption is not a reward given to Naomi because of her exemplary behavior. God chooses to redeem those who seem to have done little to deserve redemption.”

The Hebrew word sub translated ‘turn,’ ‘return,’ ‘go back,’ ‘turn back,’ ‘brought back’ occurs 15 times in the book of Ruth, 12 times in chapter 1. What we miss is that sub is often used in a “figurative sense to describe mental, emotional, or spiritual reversals.” That usage rings a little bell in our heads as it’s used in Ruth, even if the word is used to literally describe someone turning around. Robertson Farmer writes, “The frequent repetition of ‘turn’ may also be used to alert the audience to the role that reversals play in this part of the story. The chapter begins in the midst of a famine and ends in the midst of a barely harvest. The ones who look for more abundant life in Moab find death there instead. Naomi’s life turns from ‘full’ in the midst of famine to ‘empty’ in the midst of plenty, and Naomi herself turns from ‘sweet’ to ‘bitter.’”

Naomi and husband Elimelech are Ephrathites from Bethlehem. 1 Chronicles 2 suggests that Bethlehem was established by the descendants of a woman named Ephrath, the wife of Caleb. Naomi and husband are her descendants.

When we hear they’re going to Moab we think, “okay. Good to know.” When the ancient hearers of this story heard they were going to Moab they would have been repulsed.  Robertson Farmer writes, “in the ears of an Israelite audience, almost any reference to Moab would have carried negative moral and emotional connotations. Genesis 19 reflects Israelite feelings of contempt for Moabites, claiming that Moab had incestuous beginnings.”  The people of Israel also had negative dealings with Moab when they were in the wilderness after being freed from slavery (see Numbers 22 and 25).

Naomi’s sons have symbolic names. “Mahlon sounds like the disease that hit the Egyptians before the exodus (Exodus 15:26), and Chilion seems to come from the root kala, meaning ‘to perish.’”

More wordplay- in verse 6 it says that Naomi heard that God gave the people in Bethlehem food. The word translated ‘food’ is lehem which means ‘bread.’ Bethlehem means ‘house of bread.’ She decides to return to the House of Bread because bread returned to the House of Bread.

Naomi encourages her daughters-in-law to return to their mothers’ houses.  That phrase only shows up in Hebrew scripture four times, and all four times it’s related to marriage arrangements. Robertson Farmer writes, “going back to their mother’s house is a first step in the process that will allow them to find ‘rest’ or ‘security’ in another husband’s house.”

Verse 8 uses the word kindness or kindly. This is the Hebrew word hesed which we focused on during Camp Fairview 2025. Robertson Famer writes, “Hesed is considered an essential part of the nature of God and is frequently used to describe God’s acts of unmerited grace and mercy. But human beings are also able to do or to show hesed to one another. To do or show hesed means to demonstrate lovingkindness and loyalty that extends far beyond what the law requires, beyond anything the recipient expects or deserves to receive.”

Naomi argues that her daughters-in-law return home by pointing out that they will not be able to follow the custom of levirate marriage.  Robertson Farmer explains, “If an Israelite man died before he produced any offspring, his brother was expected to marry the widow and to allow the firstborn son of their union to carry on the dead man’s name.’” You can read more about this in Deuteronomy 25.

Naomi is going back to Bethlehem because what was barren before is now fruitful.  She expressed her belief that God will not deal with her in the same way.  She calls herself ‘bitter’ or mara.

Turn or sub comes out a lot here. Naomi decided to return to Bethlehem. She tells her daughters-in-law to return to their mother’s houses. The Lord’s hand has turned against Naomi.

Because we’re not reading this in Hebrew we miss the indignation of Ruth based on her word choices. Ruth says, “do not press me to leave you.” Leave, or in Hebrew azab, means “changing primary allegiance.” It’s the word used when Israel is said to ‘abandon’ or ‘forsake’ the Lord.

Again, Naomi calls herself bitter, using a pun- Naomi sounds like two Hebrew words – no’am which means ‘pleasant’ and na’im which means ‘sweet.’  But she’s not feeling sweet or pleasant. Her circumstances are not sweet or pleasant. So she says, call me Mara which means ‘bitter.’ When she was full an appropriate name for her was Sweet, but now that she is empty, call her Mara.  These verses rhyme in Hebrew.

“Turn” is used twice in the final verse of chapter 1. Ruth is called the Moabite here, probably to underscore how the people in Bethlehem thought of her- the Moabite, the outsider.  

We get more wordplay in chapters two and three. The narrator plays with the ideas of knowing and not knowing and leaving and cleaving in these middle chapters.

Robertson Farmer writes, “Boaz is ‘known’ as a member of Elimelech’s clan. Ruth is a foreigner (one who is unknown) who comes to a people that she ‘did not know before.’ Boaz, who is ‘known’ to Naomi ‘notices’ the one who is unknown and acknowledges her right to his protection. In keeping with the narrator’s interest in knowing and not knowing, we find a pattern of repetition of the word for ‘eyes’ enayim in this section. Ruth uses the phrase ‘to find favor in the eyes of’ in 2:2, in 2:10, and again in 2:13. Boaz also tells Ruth to keep her ‘eyes’ on the field that is being reaped.”

“In chapter 1 Ruth was said to ‘cling’/‘cleave’/‘stay close’ dabaq to her mother-in-law, whom she stubbornly refused to ‘leave’/‘forsake’/‘abandon’ azab. In this chapter, Boaz tells Ruth to ‘cling’/‘cleave’/‘stay close’ dabaq to his workers and praises her for having ‘abandoned’ or ‘left’ azab her faither, her mother, and her native land in order to accompany Naomi back to Bethlehem. Boaz uses the word azab again when he orders his workers to ‘leave’ some extra stalks of grain for Ruth to glean; Naomi uses azab in 2:20 as she praises the one ‘whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead;’ and both Ruth and Naomi use dabaq (stay close) again in 2:21, 2:23.

Boaz is described as “a man of standing” in the NIV and a “prominent rich man” in the NRSV.  This translates gibbor hayil which in various places in scripture has been translated "warriors" in Josh 1:14 and Judges 11:1, "a man of wealth" in 1 Samuel 9:1, and "a man of valor" in 1 Samuel 16:18. In some places hayil means "procreative power" or "ability to produce offspring" like in Job 21:7 or Joel 2:22.

Boaz calls Ruth hayil in chapter 3.  In that instance it’s translated as “worthy” in the NRSV. But when Boaz is described as hayil it’s translated “rich.” It would make more sense if it was translated “worthy” in both instances. Both of them being described in the same way clues us in to the fact that they are a well-matched pair.

Ruth is continually referred to as “the Moabite.” It feels repetitive for a reason. The narrator really wants to highlight Ruth’s “otherness.”

Ruth can glean or pick up the leftover grain because of Mosaic Law – see Leviticus 19:9-10 and 23:22 and Deuteronomy 24:19.

Boaz calls Ruth “my daughter.” This “could be understood as either a traditional form of address from an older person to a woman who is considerably younger or as a form of address that emphasizes the superior status of the speaker.”

More wordplay- Ruth’s question to Boaz plays with two forms of the same word-  “foreigner” and “take notice” come from the same root word. Ruth says, “why do you ‘recognize’ me [notice me], when I am ‘one who is not recognized’ [a foreigner]?’

Boaz refers to God’s wing in verse 12- “may the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!” This borrows the image of God as mother hen gathering her chicks under her wing, or a mother eagle caring for her young-see Deuteronomy 32:11 and Psalm 91:4.

Robertson Farmer writes, “Boaz apparently assumes that Ruth’s future is in the hands of the LORD. Ruth’s reply in the first part of v. 13 subtly suggests that the LORD may be waiting for Boaz to act! …we might say that Ruth challenges Boaz to ‘put his money where his mouth is.’” Robertson Farmer continues writing about what Ruth says to Boaz in v. 13- “when Ruth uses the phrase ‘speak kindly to your servant’ she is using language that could be construed in one of two ways. The phrase can mean simply to speak kindly (like in Gen 50:21) or to ‘encourage’ someone (like in 2 Sam 19:7). But in several other texts the idiom is used in the context of courtship or persuasion in a sexual sense (like in Gen 34:3; Judges 19:3; Hos 2:14). Ruth (or the narrator) may be hinting that Boaz’s speech sounds like ‘sweettalking.’”

In verse 20 Naomi reveals that Boaz is a goel “one of our nearest kin” or “one of our kinsman-redeemers.” Goel comes from the root gaal which means “to redeem’ or ‘to recover.’ “In Israelite law codes, a goel is a designated male family member (brother, uncle, cousin) who is expected to recover (rescue, ransom, buy back, redeem) that which has been (or is in danger of being) removed from family control by poverty, war, death, etc… But the circumstances in Ruth (at least as far as they have been explained by the narrator) do not seem to conform to any of the legal codes preserved in Scripture. At this point in the story, it is not at all clear to the modern reader what Boaz might be expected to ‘redeem.’”

Even though Ruth and Naomi no longer have any familial claim to one another, Naomi includes Ruth when she says, that Boaz is “one of our closest relatives.”

It seems like Naomi is seeing some potential, a solution to all their problems- Boaz and Ruth could get married and Naomi and Ruth would be provided for. But chapter 2 ends with them both still widows, even though they’ve been in Bethlehem for seven weeks (the usual period between the start of the barley harvest and the end of the wheat harvest.) This sets the stage for some dramatic action in the next chapter.

If you’re very familiar with this story, do you have any preconceived notions of Boaz? What are they? How do we explain Boaz’s motives?
How have you always seen Ruth? As a person who takes action or a person things happen to?
How does each character define family? How do you define family? Who is family and who is not? Why?
 How does an outsider become an insider? – in your own family, in a group of friends, in our church community?

In chapter three we get wordplay, puns, and euphemisms. Chapter three consists of three scenes. The narrator plays with the words gala  ‘uncover’ and gaal ‘recover’/‘redeem’/‘act as next-of-kin’ in the first two scenes which leads to dramatic tension in the third scene.

Robertson Farmer writes, “in this chapter, the narrator’s penchant for puns develops into a mischievous use of words and phrases that may be understood to have either innocent or sexually suggestive meanings. In other Old Testament texts, ‘to know’ and ‘to lie down’ are each used as euphemisms for sexual intercourse. When Ruth asks Boaz to take her ‘under his wing’ in v. 9, she uses the same phrase that is used in Ezekiel 16:8 as a metaphor for marriage.

“The word margelot or ‘feet’ comes from a root commonly used in euphemisms for the genitals (see Isa 7:20); ‘uncover’ is frequently found in texts prohibiting sexual relationships between close relatives (Lev 18:6-19); and ‘threshing floors’ were traditionally associated with sex for hire (Hos 9:1). The clustering together of so many terms that have both innocent denotations (face-value meanings) and sexually suggestive connotations must be considered a deliberate narrative ploy. Misplaced prudery may tempt modern readers to cover up the sexually suggestive nature of the text, but doing so robs the story of an essential element of its meaning.”

The first scene in chapter 3 is Naomi’s plan. The harvest season is ending, and the two women need a long term solution for their sustenance and protection. Naomi calls Boaz their kinsman.  The word translated ‘kinsman’ is not goel or ‘kinsman-redeemer’ which she used earlier, but a word derived from the root yd which means ‘to know.’ Robertson Farmer writes, “Audience members who were fully aware of the euphemistic uses of ‘know’ (see, e.g., Gen 4:1, 17, 25) must have been amused at the double meaning inherent in Naomi’s advice, ‘Do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking.”

Almost everything Naomi says to Ruth has a double meaning and/or is a euphemism for genitalia or sex. Naomi tells Ruth to uncover Boaz’s feet (a euphemism for genitalia). Robertson Farmer writes, “by juxtaposing the similar-sounding words gala (‘uncover’/ ‘reveal’/ ‘remove’) and gaal (‘recover’/ ‘redeem’/ ‘restore’), the narrator encourages the audience to consider ways in which ‘uncovering’ (with all its possible innuendoes) can lead to ‘recovering’ –to the redemption of what is lost.”

The readers/hearers of this story would have had other stories in the back of their minds as they heard this one – see Genesis 19 and 38.

Naomi tells Ruth to uncover Boaz’s feet and “he will tell you what to do.” Ruth promises to do this. What ends up happening is Ruth tells Boaz what to do- “spread your cloak (kanap) over your servant, for you are next-of-kin.” Boaz had previously used the term kanap translated ‘wing’ when referring to the protection of the Lord. “Now Ruth repeats Boaz’s words back to him in a context that gives a new shade of meaning to his original utterance. In Ruth’s request the word kanap retains the connotation of protection it had in 2:12. But when a woman asks a man to take her ‘under his wing,’ the metaphor assumes sexual overtones (as in Deuteronomy 27:20; Ezekiel 16:8). Again in 3:9, as in 2:13, Ruth challenges Boaz to take action to make his pious wishes come true.”

The story gets a bit tricky to understand from a modern perspective at this point. It seems like two laws from scripture are being combined to encourage Boaz to marry Ruth: kinsman-redeemer and levirate marriage.  But neither of these really applies to this situation. There may have been customs operating at this time and in this place that would require Boaz to marry Ruth, but none recorded in scripture.

Boaz says to Ruth, “this last instance of your loyalty (hesed) is better than the first.” Scholars are unsure what exactly this means.  Maybe the first loyalty is to her first husband and family and the more recent is to Boaz?  In verse 11 Boaz agrees to marry Ruth. Verse 13 is Boaz agreeing to be the kinsman-redeemer. Robertson Farmer writes, “…he swears that one way or another he will see to the recovery (redemption) of what was lost after the deaths of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion. Up to this point in the story, we have not been told precisely what Boaz is being asked to redeem or recover. We can only deduce, from what has been said so far, that ‘Boaz as a redeemer will provide Naomi, as well as Ruth, with economic security.’”

The third scene of chapter three begins in the very early morning.  Boaz helps Ruth to sneak out, before she is recognized, to preserve her reputation, his reputation, or both, we’re not sure. We’re also not sure if there is meaning behind him giving her “six barley” and if there is, what it is.

Naomi takes the barley as a sign that Boaz will settle the matter today. Boaz uses the same word Naomi used in chapter 1 saying she was empty.  He says, “Do not return to her empty-handed.”

We’re left on a cliffhanger. Boaz has promised marriage and redemption. How will he do it?

Robertson Farmer suggests questions for us to consider as we think through the characters’ motivations:
Does Ruth merely encourage a shy or hesitant Boaz to follow his own inclinations, as traditional piety often assumes? Or does the plan formulated by Naomi and carried out by Ruth constitute entrapment, as some other readers suggest?
In order to evaluate Boaz’s character, we must first decide whether Boaz had a moral or legal obligation to do something about Naomi and Ruth’s precarious economic situation. If we decide that he did, then we must ask, why had he not done so before? Did Boaz have to be shamed into doing his duty, or had he truly not seen a way to help until Ruth pointed it out to him?
Did Ruth have to prick his conscience, or did she simply help him to see a way in which he could do hesed ‘kindness’ beyond the call of obligation or duty?

All of a sudden, we hear about a field that Naomi is selling/already sold that belongs to Elimelech. “The verb that Boaz uses, makar, sold, is in the perfect tense, which ordinarily indicates a completed action. Thus, we could understand Boaz to mean that Naomi (or Elimelech) had already sold the field in question, perhaps during the famine that motivated the family’s move to Moab.” So, redeeming the land would be to buy it back from the current owner who is not part of the family.

In verse 4 Boaz uses an idiom that means “I thought I would uncover your ear” which we have translated “I thought I would tell you of it.” This goes along with all the uncover/recover word play from previous chapters.

The kinsman decides to redeem the land and buy it back.

Boaz then tells the kinsman that this deal will include a levirate marriage sort of arrangement as well, with Ruth the Moabite included.  This is either legally true, or Boaz is saying something like, “if you’re willing to redeem the land then you should also be willing to marry Ruth.” It’s not clear which it is.  

The kinsman gives up his right to the land by giving Boaz a sandal. This detail is explained to the reader/hearer so this custom had fallen out of fashion by the time the story was written down/told.

Boaz declares that he has acquired the land and Ruth.  The term translated ‘acquired’ is qana and has a spectrum of meanings from ‘purchase’ to ‘possess’ to ‘make one’s own.’

The witnesses at the gate pronounce a blessing on Boaz and Ruth. They reference Rachel and Leah, wives of Jacob who along with their maids, gave birth to the twelve sons of Jacob, for whom the twelve tribes of Israel are named. They also refer to Tamar. Jacob and Leah’s son, Judah and Tamar are the parents of Perez. These are all ancestors of Boaz, Elimelech, and Naomi. You can find Tamar’s story in Genesis 38.

The way the narrator phrases verse 13 it sounds like consummating a marriage is a human activity, but God is the one who made Ruth conceive. This reminds me of in Exodus when it says that the LORD hardened Pharoah’s heart.  The narrator of Exodus wants to make it clear that the only way the people were able to leave Egypt and slavery was because of God’s action. It wasn’t that Pharaoh decided to let them leave.  There was NO WAY Pharoah could decide that since God hardened his heart.  The ONLY way the people were redeemed was because of God’s action. The narrator makes it clear that it is because of God’s action that Ruth conceives and gives birth to a son.

 We get a bit more wordplay when the women call Ruth’s son Naomi’s redeemer, goel. They refer, not to the legal term like we’ve seen in previous chapters, but redeemed as in, turned her life around.  These women were there in chapter 1 when Naomi called herself ‘empty’ and ‘bitter.’  She is neither anymore.

Ruth the Moabite is King David’s great-grandmother and an ancestor of Jesus.