John Mark Hicks

God Has Spoken

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

We persevere because God has spoken. In the past (and continuing into the present) God has spoken through prophets and angels as well as other messengers. And also God has spoken through a son who will inherit all things, a son who is the wisdom of God from teh beginning and became human in order to become a royal priest for our sakes.

Though the NRSV translation, like most, offer their translation in several sentences, the Greek text is one magnificent sentence. It is like a thesis statement. Its auricular impact with alliteration and other rhetorical devices escapes English readers. We miss the effect the original rhetoric would have had on its first readers. Nevertheless, the theological point is evident in English as well as Greek: God has spoken.

More specifically, God has spoken through the prophets and has, in these last days, spoken through a Son.

Topic	Past	Present	Relation
Speech	God has spoken	God has spoken	Continuity
Era	In the past	In these last days	Contrast
Recipients	To our ancestors	To us	Contrast
Agents	Through the prophets	Through one who is son	Contrast
Manner	In various ways	Embodied presence	Contrast
Times	In various times	In a particular time	Contrast
Content	Redemption and Perseverance	Redemption and Perseverance	Continuity

It is not that the God has spoken in the past and no longer speaks through prophets and in various ways. Rather, God has now also spoken through a Son (there is no article “the” before Son, though it is clear the preacher is describing a particular Son). There is no “but” in the Greek text of 1:1-4, which the NRSV and NIV among others provide at the beginning of verse 2. A conjunction is perhaps needed (though there is no conjunction in the KJV, CVS, NET), but it should be something like “and now” (NLT, or “but also”). It is a contrast between prophets and Son but not a contrast in the fact that God has spoken.

The content of the speech is not contrasted, but the means or mode of speaking is. God still speaks through the prophets (often quoted in Hebrews), and what the prophets spoke, the Son also speaks. It is the voice of God, the word of God through both the prophets and the Son. The message—the good news—is the same (Hebrews 4:2, 6). The message of the prophets and the Son does not stand in contrast but in typological continuity, fulfillment, or eschatological meaning. The preacher uses the Hebrew Bible to substantiate, expound, and ground the role of the Son. The Hebrew Bible, as the product of the prophets, speaks of the Son.

At the same time, even though the era, recipient, means, manner, and times are contrasted, there is still an assumed continuity. There is one people of God who has lived with God in history and heard the voice of God. This is a shared familial relationship. God has not changed, God has spoken, and continues to speak.

The contrast is in the particularity of the son’s message. The Son speaks in the “last days,” that is, at the end of the ages. He speaks to us in the present rather than prophets in the past. He is a son, not just a prophet. He spoke as an embodied person at a particular time during his ministry (Hebrews 2:1-4) rather than through dreams and visions in the past over a long period of time.

The preacher does not diminish what God said through the prophets. The contrast does not mean the rejection of what the prophets said or that there are no more prophets. Rather, it is about the wonder of the incarnation that God has now spoken through a son rather than through mere prophets. There is something climactic about this speech through a son; it has a finality as the criterion by which all the thoughts and intents of the heart are judged. It is spoken in the last days as an embodied presence. In effect, God has spoken in person in addition to speaking through prophets. God still speaks through the prophets, through the Spirit, and the climactic and full revelation of God is in a son, who is the heir of all things. Given that it is God’s own self-expression, the speech (revelation) of this son is the message that forms the criterion by which we discern the mystery of God in Christ.

This does not contradict the prophets or what God has earlier said but confirms it, fills it, and completes it. What God said in the past is true and is still true, and now we see it more clearly through the self-revelation of God by a son.

The contrast between prophets and son includes a contrast between the function of prophets and the function of a son. Both speak, but they are different. A prophet is God’s messenger who speaks the word of God and represents God among the people. The Son is a divine messenger who shares the nature of God and is the heir of all things. The person and work of the Son far exceeds the person and work of a prophet.

This son participates in both the divine and human natures. The description, it seems, applies to the exalted son, the one who “sat down” at the right hand of God. But some of the characteristics are also appropriate to the son as an eternal person while others are only true in terms of the exaltation. The point is the preacher describes a son who now sits at the right hand of God, and that one was both the agent of creation from the beginning and was made human for the sake of purification. He is both the heir from the beginning and in light of his exaltation. In sitting down, he becomes the fullness of all that God intended from the beginning.

The preacher’s description of this son begins with his status as heir of all things. This is the final status of this son but it also the intent from the beginning since the creation, according to Colossians, was made “by him and for him.” He inherits as son, the one who is exalted to the right hand of the father.

This Son. . .

Divine	Human
appointed heir of all things
through whom God created the worlds
the radiance of God’s glory
the exact imprint of God’s very being
sustains all things by his powerful word
	having made purification for sins
	sat down at the right hand of [God]
	having become superior to the angels
the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs

The preacher describes this son in divine terms. The Son is the agent of creation. The term is more literally “ages” rather than “worlds,” but it refers to the history of creation itself. The ages through which the creation has progressed are actualized through the work of the Son. He made the ages, the worlds, or the creation itself.

This son is the reflection (or better, radiance) of God’s glory. The Greek word is apaugasma, which only occurs here in the New Testament. And it occurs only once in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Bible of the early church in Wisdom 7:26: “For she is the brightness (apaugsama) of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.” In the context, Wisdom is describing God’s wisdom, a personification of God’s agent in creation (much like Proverbs 8:22-31 uses Lady Wisdom in a similar way). God is never without God’s wisdom, and God’s wisdom is the means by which God created the world. The wisdom of God is the “radiance” or “brilliance” of God’s own glory, being, and presence. Glory is the revelation of God’s essence. God and the Son are intricately tied together.

This son is the imprint or exact representation of God’s being. He is the exact representation, the strict image, of God’s own essence. There is no distinction in their essence. He re-presents God’s very being. He is divine. In some ways, glory and being are overlapping synonyms in Hebraic thought, and in this way radiance and imprint reflect similar ideas. The upshot is that the very nature of the Son is divine and is intimately connected to God through that shared nature.

This son sustains (“bears”), just as the Son created, all things by “his word.” This refers to the son’s speech. The Son speaks and creation obeys. The creation is sustained by the speech of the son, his (the son’s) powerful word. This is often placed in the context of providence as God through the son governs the creation towards its goal and sustains the creation in its existence. He “bears” or “carryies” the creation itself. In effect, this son is the speech of God that originates, sustains, and brings the creation to its goal.

The preacher also describes this Son in human terms. His language assumes the incarnation of the son. When the son “made purification for sins,” he did so as High Priest. Through his incarnation, obedience, and sacrifice the son purified a people for God from their sins (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:11-14).

Having made purification through sacrifice and entrance into the heavens as High Priest, this son set down at the right hand of God (cf. Hebrews 9:13-14, 22-23; 10:2, 22). This alludes to a major Hebrew text in this sermon, Psalm 110. This son, having made purification as priest, sat down at the right hand of God as king. This is union of king and priest into a royal priesthood. This son, through whom the worlds were created and by whom they are sustain, sits enthroned over the creation by virtue of having made purification for sins.

This Son, in terms of both his person and his name, is better (superior) to the angels. His person is radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being from before creation itself. His name (“Son”) is given to him in connection with his inheritance. The eternal Son inherits a name, which is “Son”. He is Son both in terms of an eternal relationship with God, and he is also Son in terms of his incarnation and subsequent exaltation to the right hand of God.

“Better” or “more excellent” is a common word in Hebrews (thirteen times; only six other places in the NT):

• better than angels, 1:4;
• more than Moses, 3:3;
• better gifts than the present, 6:9;
• betters bless inferiors, 7:7;
• better hope, 7:19;
• better covenant, 7:22 and 8:6;
• better promises, 8:6;
• better sacrifices, 9:23;
• better possessions, 10:34;
•  better country (heavenly one), 11:16;
• better resurrection, 11:35;
• provided something better to perfect us, 11:40;
• better blood than Abel, 12:24). 

It is important to remember that this is not “better” in contrast to “bad” or “evil,” but better in contrast to good. What is better is more than the other rather than saying something was wrong with the other. It is a qualitative such that it identifies something superior. Typically, the contrast is more like what is temporal or finite in contrast to what is eternal or everlasting. It is not a contrast between what is material and what is spiritual since the incarnate son is material and gives everlasting life to materiality through his resurrection body.

Why contrast the Son to angels? Is it because someone was worshipping angels? Or that the preacher was responding to an angelic Christology (as in, Jesus was just another angel or even a high ranking angel). There is little to no evidence in Hebrews for either of those alternatives. Rather, the angels are messengers like the prophets, and the angels mediated the Torah spoken by the prophets. The Torah was delivered by angels at Mt. Sinai (Acts 7:38-39; Gal. 3:19, which is a common tradition in Jewish Second Temple literature). In other words, the Son is superior to the other messengers, whether prophets or angels.

So, to whom does creation belong? Who is the heir of creation? It is given to this son rather than to the angels. But why? We have already been given the answer: this son is heir of the cosmos because he is the eternal one who through his incarnational priesthood has been crowned as king. That is not the place of the angels; it belongs to this Son.

Hebrews is most probably a sermon, a “word of exhortation” (Hebrews 13:22; cf. Acts 13:15), offered to a specific community that was discouraged by faith-fatigue and their social dislocation. He encourages them to persevere based on what God has done for them.

Essentially, the sermon says: “Since we have this great gift from God, let us persevere in our service to God and each other.”

A full schedule of the lessons and a more detailed outline are available here.

There are several unknowns about this document.

• The author of the written sermon is unknown and anonymous, though its preacher knows the recipients well, and both know Timothy (Hebrews 13:23).
• The timing of the sermon is unknown, whether it is even before or after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
• The specific community is unknown, though the community and the preacher both know some people in Italy or from Italy (Hebrews 13:24).

Though these are significant unknowns, they do not hinder the message of the sermon because we learn so much about the recipients from the document itself. 

The community is at a crossroads moment that endangers and weakens their living faith. They are on the verge of apostasy, and some have already abandoned their faith.

• They are drifting from their original fervent embrace of the God’s word (Hebrews 2:1).
• They are in danger of failing to reach the land of promised rest (Hebrews 4:1).
• They must move beyond their immaturity and press on to maturity (Hebrews 6:1).
• They are slowly giving up meeting together, and some already have (Hebrews 10:25).
• They are in danger of giving up their inheritance like Esau did (Hebrews 12:16-17).

But what was the occasion of this danger? Why are these believers in such danger? What are the circumstances of this crisis?

Many have read Hebrews through the lens that the danger the congregation faced was a potential return to Judaism or some had already returned to Judaism. As far as we know this perspective began with Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (d. 407). The preacher, Chrysostom thought, was attempting to persuade Jewish Christians to persevere rather than abandon Christianity in order to embrace once again the Judaism of their past. While this cannot be ruled out absolutely, and there is some reason to think some might have moved in that direction, I think that focus is too narrow. Hebrews does not say anything about a return to Judaism. That is an inference that is not explicitly supported by the sermon.

Perhaps rather than rejecting Judaism, this is a Christian attempt to deal with the nearing or recent destruction of the temple and its cultus. Just as Judaism in the post-temple era had to reimagine and reinterpret sacrifices and relationship with God, so also Christians had to think theologically about it as well. After all, while the temple still stood, Jesus-followers still participated in the rituals and worshipped God at the temple (for example, Acts 2:46-47; Paul in Acts 21).

Even if the above alternatives have any merit, the struggles of discouragement, persecution, and social dislocation are explicit. The preacher in Hebrews characterizes their journey as a wilderness experience. They are like Israel trekking through the wilderness in search of a permanent home (Hebrews 3:7-18). Like Israel, they are in danger of not receiving the promised rest if they do not persevere in faith (Hebrews 4:1-13). Their social location means they experience the hostility and suspicion of a culture that does not understand them. They are shamed by their neighbors. They are a persecuted people, though not yet unto blood (Hebrews 12:4). There are no martyrs in their circumstance, at least for the moment. Nevertheless, they can expect this as they follow Jesus who was shamed in his death. Given such social pressures—shaming and persecution—it is not surprising that some have decided to abandon Jesus community. Faith can waste away in a hostile culture. It is difficult to hang on when the dominant culture is shaming you, persecuting you, and hostile to your way of life.

The fundamental reason for the sermon, then, is to persuade believers to persevere, and it does this by providing reasons to stay. It answers the question, “Why stay? Is it worth it? What is the benefit?” While there are many supporting points, the outline of the sermon identifies at least three reasons.

• God has spoken to us through a Son (Hebrews 1:1-4).
• God has provided a great High Priest for us (Hebrews 4:14-16).
• God has invited us to enter God’s sanctuary (Hebrews 10:19-25).

These are three grounding moments in the sermon, and they provide a thesis supported by the following material. Stay because God has spoken not only through angels and prophets but has spoken through the Son who became human and shared our suffering as a pathfinder through the suffering into glory. Stay because God has provided a High Priest for us to deal with sin not only in his death but through his continual intercession for us at the throne of God. Stay because God invites us to serve in the sanctuary as royal priests who will inherit all that belongs to the Son.

Believers are exhorted to continue their life of faith despite their dire circumstances because this is how God has come to humanity in a dramatic way through the incarnate God who died for sin and was raised to present his offering before God for the purification of all things. This is what is really real. Everything else, even the good things like the Levitical sacrificial system and its tabernacle, is a shadow of this reality.

An outline of the sermon, then, may be something like this, and it will be the way I will unfold the message of Hebrews in coming weeks.

I. The Sonship of Jesus: God’s Spoken Word (1:1-4:16).

Thesis: God has spoken to us through the Son (1:1-4).

1. The Person of the Son (1:5-2:18).
2. The Prophetic Function of the Son (3:1-4:13).

II. The Priesthood of Jesus: Our High Priest (4:14-10:18).

Thesis: Jesus, the Son of God, is our High Priest, including exhortation (4:14-16).

1. The Priestly Office (5:1-7:28).
2. The Priestly Function, An Exposition (8:1-10:18).

III. Faithful Participation: Our Response to God’s Gift through Jesus (10:19-12:29)

Thesis: We enter the holy sanctuary through Jesus, including exhortation (10:19-25).

1. Follow the Faithful (10:26-11:40).
2. Endure the Hardship (12:1-17).
3. Participate in the Eschatological (Heavenly) Reality (12:18-29).

IV. Epistolary Epilogue (13:1-25).

1. Serving as Priests in the Community of Faith (13:1-6).
2. Application of the Sermon’s Point (13:7-17).
3. Concluding Epistolary Notes (13:18-25).

The Blessedness of Naomi (Ruth 4:13-22)

So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, the LORD made her conceive, and she bore a son. Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed; he became the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Now these are the descendants of Perez: Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron of Ram, Ram of Amminadab, Amminadab of Nahshon, Nahshon of Salmon, Salmon of Boaz, Boaz of Obed, Obed of Jesse, and Jesse of David.

The narrative of the book of Ruth begins with the tragedies that befell Naomi, and the narrative ends with her blessedness.

The tragic circumstances of Naomi’s life left her bitter (1:20-21). She wanted to be called “Bitter” (mara) rather than “Pleasant” (Naomi). Yahweh had dealt “bitterly” with her and returned her to Bethlehem “empty.” She experienced her tragedy as Yahweh’s harsh treatment, and she named God as the one who “brought calamity upon” her.

How might we describe her feelings and situation? Shamed? Disappointed? Frustrated? Wounded? Hopeless?

However, through the hesed (mercy, loyalty) of Ruth and Boaz as well as the hidden footprints of God throughout the narrative, the book of Ruth ends with blessing rather than curse, hope rather than despair, and fullness rather than emptiness.

Ruth and Boaz marry, and Boaz “came to her” (consummating the marriage, we might say), and Ruth conceived. In fact, Yahweh “made her conceive” (literally, Yahweh gave to her pregnancy or conception), and the result was a son. What Ruth had never known in her barrenness and what Naomi had lost in death was renewed in the family of Elimelech—a son to bear the name, inherit the land, and support the family.

It is important to note that Naomi is blessed by the women rather than Ruth as the one blessed. Naomi has always been central to the story; it is about the honor and continuance of her family, particularly her husband’s name. A child is born! Indeed, “a son has been born to Naomi!” In fact, she became his nurse.

The women bless the newborn: (1) a renowned name; (2) a restorer of life for the elderly Naomi; and (3) his mother who is more to Naomi than seven sons. Most likely, the “name” is not Boaz, but the child will have a name, that is, a reputation that brings honor to the family. This “name” will ultimately include David, the second king of Israel. This son will provide and support Naomi in her old age. And Ruth will still be there as one whose love for Naomi has no measure.

The genealogy provides a hint as to why we have this story. It details the lineage of David, perhaps affirming his reign.

But the genealogy is not simply about David, though it climaxes there. Beginning with Perez (rather than Judah) it reminds us that Perez is the son of Tamar (already named in 4:12). Though unnamed, Rahab also lies in the backdrop. She born a son to Salmon, from whom Boaz descended (perhaps even the son of Salmon). These non-Israelite women—both were Canaanites—are part of the lineage of David, and remember Ruth is a Moabitess.

Ruth, a worthy character and filled with hesed, is the agent of Naomi’s redemption, just as Rahab redeemed her family and Tamar continued the lineage of Judah. To one degree or another, sexual scandal was associated with these women, and yet they are the ones whose initiative secured the lineage.

Perhaps in addition to the genealogy securing David’s position in the history of Israel/Judah, another important point is about women in Israel/Judah. While Judges 19-21 highlights the violent narratives against women as a witness to the chaotic and immoral condition of Israel, the story of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz affirms and honors women. This is, in part, an antidote to the violence present in Judges.

This antidote is found in hesed, which is an inherent characteristic of Yahweh, the God of Israel!

Boaz at the City Gate (Ruth 4:1-12)

No sooner had Boaz gone up to the gate and sat down there than the next-of-kin, of whom Boaz had spoken, came passing by. So Boaz said, “Come over, friend; sit down here.” And he went over and sat down. Then Boaz took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, “Sit down here”; so they sat down. He then said to the next-of-kin, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our kinsman Elimelech. So I thought I would tell you of it, and say: Buy it in the presence of those sitting here, and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not, tell me, so that I may know; for there is no one prior to you to redeem it, and I come after you.” So he said, “I will redeem it.” Then Boaz said, “The day you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, you are also acquiring Ruth^a the Moabite, the widow of the dead man, to maintain the dead man’s name on his inheritance.” At this, the next-of-kin said, “I cannot redeem it for myself without damaging my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”

Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one took off a sandal and gave it to the other; this was the manner of attesting in Israel. So when the next-of-kin said to Boaz, “Acquire it for yourself,” he took off his sandal. Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have acquired from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, to be my wife, to maintain the dead man’s name on his inheritance, in order that the name of the dead may not be cut off from his kindred and from the gate of his native place; today you are witnesses.” Then all the people who were at the gate, along with the elders, said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you produce children in Ephrathah and bestow a name in Bethlehem; and, through the children that the LORD will give you by this young woman, may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.”

On the previous night, Ruth courageously and boldly proposed marriage to Boaz for the sake of Naomi and the house of Elimelech. Boaz accepted the proposal and vowed to honor his role as kinsman-redeemer. But another has the first right of refusal, and, consequently, Boaz immediately goes to the city gate to settle the matter. Who will redeem the house of Elimelech by purchasing the land, caring for Naomi, marrying Ruth, and providing that house with a heritage of children? The two kinsmen will negotiate a resolution before the city elders at the gate.

Boaz Honors First-Right of Refusal

The city gate is communal space. At many gates, benches were carved into or attached to the walls. There the city elders would sit, bear witness to transactions, hear disputes, and adjudicate cases as needed. Ten elders, in later Jewish tradition, was a necessary number to establish a quorum for synagogue meetings or starting a synagogue. This number apparently legitimated the action, and this is probably why Boaz gathers ten elders to witness what he is about to do.

Arriving at the gate, Boaz sees the other potential kinsman-redeemer and gathers the elders together. Interestingly but significantly, the other kinsman-redeemer remains unnamed. In fact, though translations often represent Boaz as calling him a “friend” (NRSV; 4:1), the Hebrew is indefinite and literally means “a certain one.” The narrator deliberately omits his name. It is the name of Boaz that will be remembered, and not this “certain” kinsmen-redeemer.

When they sat down at the gate with the elders, Boaz names what most probably was already rather well-known to the community. The town is well-aware of Naomi’s situation, and they knew about Elimelech; his kinsmen especially knew. But no one had acted to help Naomi as a kinsman-redeemer, or perhaps were unaware of her desire to sell Elimelech’s land. Boaz is now going to force the issue. How will the community respond to Naomi? More particularly, will a kinsman-redeemer step up and take responsibility.

The first issue Boaz raises is land. In Israel, Yahweh owned all the land. It was distributed to clans and families as an inheritance to steward and use, but it belonged to Yahweh. At the same time, so that there would be no poor in the land, the land would belong to the clans and families in perpetuity. Due to famine or dire circumstances (like Naomi’s), the land could be sold. A kinsman-redeemer could buy the land to keep it in the clan, but ultimately if it were sold outside the clan, it would return to the clan in the Year of Jubilee (which is every 50 years).

In essence, this land belongs to Elimelech, not Naomi. Widows did not inherit in Israel (or in most nations until the last couple of centuries). Selling the land would provide some security for Naomi, but without land there is no lasting security in ancient Israel. Perhaps the land was unfallowed and unkept due to the absence of the family who went to Moab. But land is valuable, and it is more valuable when it is worked to produce crops. Apparently, the land was barren and unkept.

Boaz says, the land is available for purchase. And the primary kinsman-redeemer has the right of first refusal.

Our no-name kinsman-redeemer is excited to purchase the land. It would enlarge his holdings and increase his profit. Moreover, there is no obligation to marry Naomi because she is beyond child-birthing years. In essence, the no-name kinsman-redeemer could enrich himself without the danger of the land disappearing into the hands of Naomi’s heir since both of her sons were dead. While the land would remain in the clan (a kinsman), Elimelech’s name would disappear even as the no-name kinsman-redeemer grew wealthier by the acquisition of more land.

But there is a catch!

When one buys the land, one assumes responsibility for the house of Elimelech, which includes Ruth the Moabitess. [The grammar of the Hebrew has the possibility of Boaz saying, “I have decided to marry Ruth,” which is also problematic if Ruth bears a son in the marriage.] This is a problem. If he marries Ruth, and she bears a son, then the inheritance of the land he just purchased would go to the son. In other words, he would lose money on this deal since he will have expended the funds to buy the land but only to give the land to the son. It would spoil his own inheritance. Moreover, marrying another woman and bearing children with her might create some trouble in his own house. It is better, he concludes, to refuse the offer and let Boaz redeem the land (along with Naomi and Ruth). He is not condemned for this action; it might have been the most prudent thing to do given his circumstances. And the clan responsibility would be fulfilled by Boaz.

Boaz Redeems Elimelech’s House

Boaz is willing to redeem Elimelech’s land and family.

The transaction between the no-name relative and Boaz is symbolized by one taking off his sandal and giving it to the other. This seems like a strange custom for modern Westerners. But feet and shoes are highly symbolic in ancient Near East and still are in much of the present Middle East. To remove the shoe, some suggest, is to acknowledge ownership.

There is evidence in the ancient Nuzi texts that when one transferred property to a new owner that the seller would lift his foot off the land and place the buyer’s foot on the land. “To set foot” on the land is an ownership claim (cf. Deuteronomy 11:24; Joshua 14:9). In Psalm 60:8, Yahweh says he will “cast my shoe” upon Edom, that is, he will take ownership. For example, Moses took off his shoes as did Joshua in the presence of Yahweh which recognized they were standing of ground God owned. Whatever the exact meaning of the symbolism, clearly the right of redemption transferred from the one who is not named to Boaz. This concrete, public act ratified the transaction.

By this transaction, Boaz acquired “from the hand of Naomi” everything that belong to Elimelech and his two sons. This included not only their land and all the inheritance that pertained to it, but also the right to marry Ruth as a kinsman-redeemer.  While the kinsman-redeemer law was specifically aimed at brothers (like in the story of Tamar and the sons of Judah), the spirit of the law is that relatives redeem the widows in their clans or families. This is Boaz’s intent since he specifically names Mahlon, the dead husband of Ruth, as the one whose inheritance he will maintain. Boaz will preserve the name of Ruth’s first husband, the son of Elimelech and Naomi.

The City Blesses Boaz

The whole city—“all the people who were at the gate”—witnessed this, honored it, and blessed the arrangement.

The city offers three blessings.

• May Yahweh make Ruth like Rachel and Leah who built up the house of Israel through their birthing of children.
• May Yahweh bless Boaz with children and bestow a name in Bethlehem.
• May Yahweh bless the house of Boaz as he did Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.

These blessings connect the story of Ruth and Boaz with the history of Israel, particularly in Genesis. Rachel and Leah (along with their maidservants) are the mothers of the twelve sons of Jacob. The “name” attached to Bethlehem of Ephrathah will link Abraham to David whose own birth prefigures the birth of the Messiah (cf. Micah 5:2-4); Boaz will have a name, but the other kinsman-redeemer remains unamed. Naming Tamar reminds us that Ruth is not the only non-Israelite in this heritage. Her son Perez was born to Judah after his two sons failed to give Tamar a child. In other words, the people bless Boaz to be more like Judah than his two sons as he takes a Moabite bride just as Judah fathered a child from a Canaanite woman.

Through these blessings, Ruth is fully integrated into the story of Israel. She is no longer and outsider but included, blessed, and honored. Boaz has redeemed the family.

Remember, however, it was Naomi’s initiative and Ruth’s boldness along with Boaz’s hesed (loyalty) that brought this moment to fruition. And, yet it was God’s hidden footsteps that guided this from Moab to the fields of Boaz to the city gates. Yahweh’s blessing had never forsaken the family of Elimelech, his wife, and his daughter-in-law.

Ruth Seeks Naomi’s Security (Ruth 3:6-16)

So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had instructed her. When Boaz had eaten and drunk, and he was in a contented mood, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came stealthily and uncovered his feet, and lay down. At midnight the man was startled, and turned over, and there, lying at his feet, was a woman! He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant; spread your cloak over your servant, for you are next-of-kin.” He said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter; this last instance of your loyalty is better than the first; you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not be afraid, I will do for you all that you ask, for all the assembly of my people know that you are a worthy woman. But now, though it is true that I am a near kinsman, there is another kinsman more closely related than I. Remain this night, and in the morning, if he will act as next-of-kin for you, good; let him do it. If he is not willing to act as next-of-kin for you, then, as the LORD lives, I will act as next-of-kin for you. Lie down until the morning.”

So she lay at his feet until morning, but got up before one person could recognize another; for he said, “It must not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.” Then he said, “Bring the cloak you are wearing and hold it out.” So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley, and put it on her back; then he went into the city. She came to her mother-in-law, who said, “How did things go with you,^a my daughter?” Then she told her all that the man had done for her, saying, “He gave me these six measures of barley, for he said, ‘Do not go back to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’” She replied, “Wait, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest, but will settle the matter today.”

On Boaz’s threshing floor in the dead of the night, Ruth brazenly (and selflessly) proposed marriage and reminded Boaz of his kinsman-redeemer obligation. Boaz recognized her devout loyalty and her valiant strength which bolstered his opinion of her. With integrity, Boaz committed to discover her availability, protected her from gossip, and supplied her with a generous gift of barley for her and Naomi. Though once “empty,” now Ruth brings abundance to Naomi, and we anticipate more abundance to come.

Ruth Approaches Boaz

Ruth did exactly what Naomi told her to do.

She bathed, perfumed, and changed her clothing. Ruth was no longer in mourning; she is now available for marriage. Naomi wants Ruth to find “rest.” In other words, Ruth needs to find a husband as she has no means of support and no future in Bethlehem in its patriarchal and patrilineal culture.

She went to the threshing floor under the cover of darkness to secure a future by proposing marriage to its owner, Boaz. This was audacious, brazen, courageous, and risky. She exposed herself to potential humiliation, abuse, and rejection. But both Ruth and Naomi know the sort of man Boaz is. They know he is a “worthy” man, and he has demonstrated kindness (hesed) toward them both. He has protected Ruth from abuse and provided for her needs during the harvest.

Yet, Ruth does not approach Boaz directly in public view at the end of a workday. Rather, she waits till he is refreshed with food and drink and contented, beginning his rest with a night’s sleep on the threshing floor. It is the end of the harvest; Boaz stays with his grain. Ruth approaches him in quiet or “stealthily” to uncover his feet (see previous lesson for its meaning). She does not want to awaken anyone or raise an alarm. She only wants to interact with Boaz. While he still sleeps, Ruth lays down at his feet to await his response.

Bathed, perfumed, and dressed in her best, she uncovers his feet and lies down at them as a marriage proposal. This is not an invitation to a one-night stand, and neither is necessarily an invitation for a sexual liaison in the middle of the night. However, it might be an invitation to consummate a marriage on that threshing floor as Boaz is a kinsman-redeemer for the family. That is possible. At the same time, Boaz’s response tells us that there was no sexual consummation. But why not?

Ruth Proposes Marriage

Around midnight, Boaz is startled, turned over, and saw a woman lying at his feet. No doubt this was surprising. His question indicates he had not anticipated this moment, “Who are you?”

Ruth responded with four key points: (1) her name; (2) her work in the field (“your servant”); (3) her intent (“spread your cloak over your servant”); and (4) her relation (kinsman-redeemer). Since it was dark, Boaz did not immediately recognize Ruth, but he knew her from his relationship with her in the fields. She had harvested with his workers for perhaps seven weeks, shared his table, and was generously supplied with food and resources by Boaz.

She identified herself as one of his “servants” (one of his workers, according to Boaz’s kindness). But she had come to the threshing floor to extend her relationship with Boaz—no longer a boss but a partner in marriage.

Literally, her request that Boaz “spread [his] cloak over” her is “spread [his] wing over” her. “Wing” is exactly the word Boaz used when he had earlier blessed Ruth (2:12, Yahweh, “the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.” This is clearly a marriage proposal, and it is deeply theological. Boaz asked Yahweh to bless Ruth and find security (a refuge) under Yahweh’s wings. Ruth now turns the language toward Boaz with a question: “Will you be Yahweh’s wings to me?” For Boaz to cover Ruth with his wings is to participate in the blessing of Yahweh toward Ruth (and Naomi as well). Will Boaz show hesed (kindness) to Naomi through Ruth?

Ruth’s response was succinct but powerful, and Boaz caught the point immediately. Boaz did not see this as an invitation to a sexual affair but to marriage. He responds accordingly.

Boaz Responds to Ruth

Boaz’s response highlights Ruth’s character as he blesses her once again. He is not upset that she is at his feet; he does not belittle or scold her. Instead, he blesses her, just as he had done when they first met weeks previously. His blessing is rooted in the fact that Ruth is loyal to Naomi and a worthy woman.

Ruth acts out of hesed (kindness, loyalty). Ruth did not seek what was best for her personally. She did not manipulate the situation out of self-interest. If that were the case, she would have pursued a younger man. Rather, by raising the point of about the kinsman-redeemer, she was seeking security not only for herself but, and perhaps primarily, for Naomi. This is her hesed, her loyal kindness, her loving kindness, toward Naomi for which Boaz blesses her. 

In the second movement of his response, Boaz calls Ruth a “worthy” woman and reveals that the Ruth is known as such at the “assembly of my people” (literally, at the gate). Ruth has gained a reputation in town, particularly among the town elders or leaders. Consequently, Ruth should have no fear since she is respected, and Boaz intends to do as she asks.

“Worthy” is the same word that the narrator of the book of Ruth used to describe Boaz himself in Ruth 2:1. Both Ruth and Boaz are “worthy”. While this may have overtones of wealth and power when it comes to Boaz, that is not true of a barren, widowed, Moabite alien in the land. “Worthy” refers more to character than status, it seems to me. Her hesed toward Naomi is well-known. Her industry in providing for Naomi is also well-known. She has revealed her colors as a devout, self-less woman whose generosity and commitment is exemplary.

That there was no sexual consummation that night at the threshing floor is clear from Boaz’s integrity regarding his role as kinsman-redeemer. He did not presume to take liberties with Ruth as a kinsman when there was another who had the right of first choice (or first refusal). It was not his place. He did not have the right, and he honored that. This is something that must be adjudicated at the gate (or in the assembly of the people). Boaz wants to honor Ruth by acting honorably, and he wants to provide security for her that was untainted by scandal.

Yet, if Ruth is available, Boaz will honor her request. He swears an oath before Yahweh.

Ruth Returns to Naomi.

With Boaz’s reassurance and commitment, she lies down in peace to sleep on the threshing floor. One way or the other (either Boaz or the other kinsman), Ruth will have secured Naomi’s as well as her own “rest.”

Appropriately, Ruth slips out before dawn to protect her reputation. She is known as a “worthy” woman, and Boaz wants to keep it that way. This is not an escape from a sexual tryst but a prudent action to preserve both of their reputations until the matter is resolved publicly at the gate.

Before she leaves, however, Boaz gifts her a further supply of barley. Six measures of barley is probably something like half of an ephah, or probably about 15 or so pounds. Ruth carries the gift with her cloak (a different word than “wing” in 3:9). She does not return to Naomi “empty” (Ruth 1:21).

This is a gracious reversal within the narrative. Remember Naomi complained that Yahweh had brought her back “empty” to Bethlehem, but now from the threshing floor of Bethlehem, Ruth fills Naomi’s hands with abundance. She is no longer “empty.”

When Ruth returns, Naomi’s question for Ruth, in Hebrew, is the same as Boaz’s question, “Who are you?” English translations try to make sense of this; so, they typically provide a paraphrastic meaning for the phrase. Perhaps it is something like, “What’s up” or “What happened” along the lines of “how have your returned [empty or full]?” (or, “what are you doing here”? in the case of Boaz earlier).

Ruth has returned full—not only with barley but also with Boaz’s oath. Their security is firm because a kinsman-redeemer will act: if not the closest one, then Boaz certainly will as the next in line. Boaz will settle the matter one way or another.

Naomi and Ruth, however, must patiently wait for the outcome.

Naomi Seeks Ruth’s Security (Ruth 2:17-3:5)

So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley.  She picked it up and came into the town, and her mother-in-law saw how much she had gleaned. Then she took out and gave her what was left over after she herself had been satisfied.  Her mother-in-law said to her, “Where did you glean today? And where have you worked? Blessed be the man who took notice of you.” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked, and said, “The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz.” Then Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!” Naomi also said to her, “The man is a relative of ours, one of our nearest kin.”^a Then Ruth the Moabite said, “He even said to me, ‘Stay close by my servants, until they have finished all my harvest.’” Naomi said to Ruth, her daughter-in-law, “It is better, my daughter, that you go out with his young women, otherwise you might be bothered in another field.” So she stayed close to the young women of Boaz, gleaning until the end of the barley and wheat harvests; and she lived with her mother-in-law.

Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, I need to seek some security for you, so that it may be well with you. Now here is our kinsman Boaz, with whose young women you have been working. See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Now wash and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, observe the place where he lies; then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.” She said to her, “All that you tell me I will do.”

Ruth, a childless widow and Moabite, boldly and courageously entered a field to glean from the harvest. Luckily (providentially), the field belonged to Boaz who, filled with the kindness of Yahweh, showed her kindness. He invited her to glean with the women of his employ, eat at his table, and protected her from those who might abuse her. Boaz, by the grace of Yahweh, blessed Ruth. While Ruth did not know Boaz and did not know it was his field, Boaz knew Ruth because he had heard about Ruth’s kindness to Naomi and Naomi was a relative of Boaz. As yet, however, Naomi knew nothing about this until that first evening when Ruth returned from gleaning in Boaz’s field.  

Naomi Learns It Is Boaz’s Field

Ruth returned with a cooked meal (the leftovers of her meal with Boaz and his workers) and enough barely to last several months. An ephah is about a bushel of barley, which probably weighed around thirty pounds. This was a huge haul for a single day, and it represents a bountiful and blessed harvest for these two women. It is food security for the two widows as they can make bread and barter for other needs.

Naomi must have been shocked by Ruth’s production. It was, frankly, unbelievable. So, her question is a natural one, “Where do you glean?” Who would let you gather this much? Then she blesses the man who gave her permission to carry away so much of his produce without knowing who the person is. She, of course, assumes a man owns the field, and it is evident to her that the owner showed Ruth a great kindness.

This bounty and Naomi’s blessing is a startling turn of events. Naomi stands at the center of the story at this point. The one who wanted to be called Mara (bitter) because Yahweh had forsaken her is now, blessing the man in the name of Yahweh who showed Ruth kindness. While the tragic circumstances still remain (she is a widow), the bitterness is receding and blessing is on her lips.

And then she learns it is Boaz, her relative. Then another blessing rises from her lips. Boaz represents hope, a hope provided by Yahweh who providentially directed Ruth to the field of Boaz. Naomi recognizes this through her blessing. It was not chance or lucky but the work of Yahweh who has not forsaken Naomi or her family.

The theological significance of her blessing is weighty.  (1) Naomi blesses Boaz by the presence of Yahweh. (2) Boaz reflects the hesed (kindness) of Yahweh’s own life. (3) Yahweh has not forsaken the “living or the dead”—Yahweh still honors their husbands as well as themselves through this bounty. (4) Boaz is a near kinsman who has an opportunity to provide Ruth (and her) with rest and security. That is a mouthful.

Ruth adds that Boaz has also invited her to glean in his field with his workers until the end of the harvest. Naomi accepts this graciousness. Boaz’s field is safe for Ruth while another might be dangerous. Consequently, in safety and prosperity, Ruth worked in the fields of Boaz with his female gleaners until the end of the harvest, which is typically about seven weeks long.

The theology here is rich. Once exiled (we might say), Naomi has returned with Ruth the Moabitess to find rest and security in the fields of Boaz. This is the work of Yahweh, who has shown God’s own hesed through the hesed of one of Yahweh’s servants, Boaz. Naomi experiences the move from bitterness to joy, from forsakenness to blessedness, through Boaz’s faithfulness to Yahweh. I wonder if Naomi is now on the verge of saying, “no longer call me Mara.” She has hope. This is a turning point in the book as we move from despair to hope in anticipation of rest and security.

However, that rest (pleasantness, the meaning of Naomi’s name) is not yet secured in a permanent way. With the ending of the harvest, what will Naomi and Ruth do now? How can they secure a future in Bethlehem?

Naomi Counsels Ruth

Despite Boaz’s hesed and Ruth’s hard work which produced so much bounty for the two widows, the harvest is coming to an end. The two widows lack long-term security. They do not yet have “rest,” which is a word that describes security and perhaps even prosperity in this context. Naomi recognizes she must be proactive in the securing that rest, a rest for which she prayed for Yahweh to provide for her daughters-in-law in Ruth 1:9.

Boaz is that potential security because he is a kinsman who has the right to marry Ruth and secure her first husband’s lineage and inheritance (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). He has the capacity to redeem Naomi’s family. A kinsmen redeemer is one who acts on behalf of another in the family, whether brother or cousin, to secure the family’s inheritance or retrieve lost land and property. This arrangement is important for the carrying forward of the family lineage through male heirs. In this case, Naomi recognizes that Boaz can marry Ruth, and thus she emphasizes that he is “our kinsmen.”

Naomi’s plan is proactive and bold. Ruth should bathe herself, anoint herself (with perfume), and put on her best clothes. Some describe these actions as a prelude to Ruth’s prostitution of herself, preparing her for a sexual encounter. Ruth, then, is to seduce Boaz and secure terms with her kinsmen redeemer. However, it is better to regard this as a shift in Ruth’s status as a woman. These actions lay aside mournful clothing; she is no longer a mourner. The time of her grief has ended, and now she is available for marriage (see Ezekiel 16:9-10). We might image that Ruth still dressed as a widow, even as she gleaned in Boaz’s fields. Once, however, she appears before Boaz in changed clothing, he will see her with different eyes as one available for marriage.

And this is the next step of Naomi’s plan. Once Boaz and the men had finished eating and drinking at the threshing floor, Ruth should approach him quietly and “uncover his feet and lie down.”

This is probably the most controversial statement in the whole book of Ruth. What does it mean to “uncover his feet”? It is not as innocent as awakening him from his sleep because his feet got cold. Rather, “uncovering the feet” may be a euphemism for uncovering the nakedness of genitalia (like “uncovering the skirt” in Deuteronomy 27:20). In other words, she may have exposed his genitals. Or, it might be that uncovering his literal feet (perhaps his calf/thigh area) and lying down next to them was an invitation to marriage. Either way, this is a bold move, and it has sexual overtones (just as all the women in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 have some kind of sexual backdrop as well: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and—probably—the rumors that must have surrounded Mary).

This does not necessarily mean it was an invitation to a sexual encounter on that night or that she was seducing him for sex that evening. Given the character of both Boaz and Ruth in the story where honor is an important theme, the metaphor probably only means that this act was a way of proposing marriage (but more on this in the next post). Dressed as an available woman, she made herself available for marriage to Boaz. There was no sexual relations that night as we will see from the next movement in the book of Ruth.

She did this in secret (at night, while Boaz and others were sleeping) so as not to humiliate Boaz as a kinsman (see Deuteronomy 25:9). She is reminding him that he has a kinsman redeemer obligation to fulfill. She did not do this publicly but in private, and her approach is overt and pointed. In effect, she is saying “will you marry me, and fulfill your obligation to your kin?”

At least, that is Naomi’s plan. And Ruth committed to following the plan.  In the next section of Ruth, we will see how this played out and whether the plan was successful or not.

Ruth Meets Boaz (Ruth 2:1-16)

Now Naomi had a kinsman on her husband’s side, a prominent rich man, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain, behind someone in whose sight I may find favor.” She said to her, “Go, my daughter.” So she went. She came and gleaned in the field behind the reapers. As it happened, she came to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. Just then Boaz came from Bethlehem. He said to the reapers, “The LORD be with you.” They answered, “The LORD bless you.” Then Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers, “To whom does this young woman belong?” The servant who was in charge of the reapers answered, “She is the Moabite who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab.  She said, ‘Please, let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the reapers.’ So she came, and she has been on her feet from early this morning until now, without resting even for a moment.”

Then Boaz said to Ruth, “Now listen, my daughter, do not go to glean in another field or leave this one, but keep close to my young women. Keep your eyes on the field that is being reaped, and follow behind them. I have ordered the young men not to bother you. If you get thirsty, go to the vessels and drink from what the young men have drawn.” Then she fell prostrate, with her face to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?” But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. 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!” Then she said, “May I continue to find favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken kindly to your servant, even though I am not one of your servants.”

At mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here, and eat some of this bread, and dip your morsel in the sour wine.” So she sat beside the reapers, and he heaped up for her some parched grain. She ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over. When she got up to glean, Boaz instructed his young men, “Let her glean even among the standing sheaves, and do not reproach her. You must also pull out some handfuls for her from the bundles, and leave them for her to glean, and do not rebuke her.”

Ruth, despite her foreign, widowed, and barren status, takes initiative, risks abuse, and works unceasingly for the sake of her mother-in-law Naomi. And Boaz notices. He protects her, sets her among his own reapers and gleaners, and feeds her. He returns to Ruth the kindness she has shown to Naomi.

Ruth’s Initiative

Naomi and Ruth are impoverished. They have no fields. They have no food. They have no security.

Ruth takes the initiative to improve their situation. It is a bold and risky move on her part. As a Moabite widow, unprotected by a man (she does not, at this moment, “belong” to anyone), she boldly proposes to enter the fields to obtain some grain, which she is permitted to do. As a woman, however, she risks abuse from the reapers and potentially other gleaners. This is a courageous act that involved hard labor for the sake of her mother-in-law, who perhaps was unable to endure such labor. Ruth made up for it as she worked from early morning into the day without resting. She was bold and industrious.

This was not a secret, illegal plan. The poor were permitted to glean at the edges of a field (Leviticus 19:9; 23:22). Moreover, Deuteronomy 24:19 also says to the owners, “When you reap your harvest in the field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.” However, it appears she was bolder. She did not stick to the edges of the field but followed the reapers themselves, probably alongside the other gleaners. This, too, was bold and risky. She opened herself up for significant abuse, but none is mentioned in the text. This is in strong contrast to how women were treated at the end of the book of Judges. The reapers permitted her to glean what they had reaped.

“As it happened,” the NRSV says, or “as it turned out,” the NIV (2011) says, she ended up in a field owned by Boaz who employed the reapers and gleaners in his field. The Hebrew word has the sense of “chance.” It appears rather lucky that she ended up in Boaz’s field—and may seem that way to secular eyes. But the narrative is quite aware that God is at work in hidden ways. What appears to be “chance” is actually the movement of God.

Boaz is a relative from the same clan as Naomi. He was a man of “standing” (NIV) or of great “wealth” (NRSV). But the claim in the text is not simply about wealth or status, though it includes that; it is also about character. This same word will describe Ruth in 3:11 where Boaz calls her a “worthy woman.” Her worth was her character which she exhibited by her loving kindness to her mother-in-law.

The narrator clues us into Boaz’s character. He greets his workers with a blessing, “The Lord be with you.” This is no mere ritual exchange but an expression of faith in God’s work and a wish-prayer for his workers. While Naomi fears Yahweh is against her (and perhaps also Ruth as she shares Naomi’s dire condition), Boaz prays for Yahweh’s blessing for his workers. And this is the blessing he also seeks for Ruth.

Boaz Converses with Ruth

Boaz immediately blesses her and offers her his protection. She should stay in his field, his workers will not bother her, and she has access to water to quench her thirst as well. This is loving kindness in action toward an impoverished foreign barren widow. Boaz has the power, wealth, and standing, and Ruth has nothing. Boaz shows Ruth the kindness of Yahweh; he shows her “grace” (or favor).

Ruth’s response is gratitude as she falls on the grown in appreciation for his kindness. She knows this is grace. But Boaz sees this blessing as an appropriate response to Ruth’s own loving kindness toward Naomi. He knows what she has done; he knows her story. He must have inquired.

Just as Boaz blessed his workers, so he blesses Ruth with a wish-prayer as well: “May the Lord reward you for your deeds” since she has sought refuge under the wings of Yahweh, “the God of Israel.” Boaz honors her decision to seek the protection of Yahweh (to hid under Yahweh’s wings for protection, Psalm 57:1) when she could have left Naomi alone and returned to Moab.

In response, Ruth humbly asks for continued grace toward her (and Naomi) and gives thanks for the comfort he has given and kind words he has spoken. She knows she is undeserving since she is not one of his servants but is willing to serve him as a servant. There is some discussion about the meaning of speaking “kindly.” Is it the sort of kindness shown to his own workers, or does she see the beginnings of a romantic possibility here?

Ruth Eats with the Reapers

We may presume this is lunch since she will work into the evening take grain and food home to Naomi.

Boaz doubles down on grace toward Ruth. She is invited to eat with the reapers, he parcels out some grain to her, and he instructs his workers to give her full access to the field without any hostility; so much so that she can glean from the standing sheaves. That kind of gleaning is a lot less work. The workers are told twice refrain from any negative actions and talk, and they are even to leave some of their work specifically for her.

Boaz shows Ruth a grand hospitality: invitation into the field, eating with the reapers, relieving the most difficult parts of her labor, and blessing her in the name of Yahweh. The extend of this grace is in absolute contrast to the way women were treated in the last four chapters of Judges, which immediately precedes Ruth in the English Old Testament.

It is difficult to imagine how overwhelming this might be to Ruth. Boaz’s manganous gesture filled with grace and blessing must have seemed otherworldly. And, in one sense it was. It was the grace and blessing of Yahweh in a representative of Israel’s God. It is, ultimately, a testimony to the character of Yahweh and what Yahweh’s people are supposed to be.

As one of my class members suggested, when Boaz provides a field, protection, provision (a harvest), and affection (“my daughter”), he represents Yahweh who has provided the same for Israel in their land. Ruth’s response is the sort of response appropriate for Israel who was an alien in a land and then loved by God by gifting to Israel a new Eden.

Will this relationship remain where it is, or is more in store for Ruth and Boaz? As we will see, it is again Ruth who takes the initiative, not Boaz. Ruth will act, and once again Boaz will respond.

We live in a chilling moment.

Children are dying. War has no end in sight. Political discourse is laced with malice and vitriol.

Yet, it seems to me, our time is no different than many other times in world history. There is nothing unique about the previous paragraph.

This is one reason the Hebrew Bible is filled with lament. Half of the Psalms are lament (two of which Jesus quotes on the cross). Job is an extended dramatic lament. And Israel has given us a whole book, exquisitely crafted in five poems (three of them acrostics), dedicated to lament. We call it “Lamentations.”

We read Lamentations, Job, and the lament Psalms to learn to lament, practice lament, and move through lament into God’s mercy.

Lament is not simply wallowing in one’s sorrow as if it is a function of self-pity. Nevertheless, it is complaint but more. It is also petition and even praise. Lament moves us through grief toward a confident hope in God. It takes time, and it takes practice. We must take the time to talk it out with God and lament with the help of our community.

Through lament the people of God, both as individuals and a community, voice their hurts, offer their petitions, and express their hope.

Indeed, at the center of Lamentations is one of the greatest expressions of hope (Lamentations 3:22-24). When we pray the laments, let us also remember to profess:

The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases,
            his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning;
            great is your faithfulness.
“The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
            “therefore I will hope in him.”

Let us lament every evil in the world. Let us cry out to God for help. And let us trust in God’s faithful love, which is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit because we stand in the grace of Jesus, God’s Messiah.

The mercies of God are new every morning, including this morning!

–originally published as an email called “Light for the Day” through Lipscomb University, November 14, 2023.

Returning to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:19-22)

So the two of them went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they came to Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them; and the women said, “Is this Naomi?” She said to them,

            “Call me no longer Naomi,

                        call me Mara,

                        for the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me.

            I went away full,

                        but the LORD has brought me back empty;

            why call me Naomi

                        when the LORD has dealt harshly with me,

                        and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?”

So Naomi returned together with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who came back with her from the country of Moab. They came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest.

Is this Naomi? (Ruth 1:19)

When Naomi and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem, the narrator tells us two things happened: the whole city was “stirred” and the women asked, “Is this Naomi?”

What does it mean to say that whole city was stirred. This Hebrew word can mean something positive (1 Kings 1:45; Micah 2:12) or negative (Deuteronomy 7:23; Psalm 55:2). Is the town stirred with a joyous excitement or is the town disturbed by Naomi’s appearance? Or, is it a mixture of both? She has come without husband and sons with whom she left Bethlehem some years. Instead, she arrives with a Moabite woman.

Though the whole city was stirred, it is the women who ask the question among themselves. Perhaps this indicates that Naomi found a welcome among the women or that that is where she naturally first sought shelter or community. It is the women who raise the question, “Is this Naomi?” They knew Naomi before and they are surprised to see her again.

Yet, what is the point of that question? Is it shock or delight? Or perhaps something of both? We might hear shock in the question when we see this as the climax of the story of Naomi’s journey, including leaving Bethlehem with husband and sons but returning without them. Perhaps the narrator, by placing this at the end of this journey, emphasizes Naomi’s tragic circumstance. At the same time, it would not be surprising to hear in this question Naomi’s welcome and the delight of the women of Bethlehem to see her again.

I wonder if both emotions are possible: happy to see her but distressed by her appearance. When Job’s friends decided to go visit Job in order to comfort him, perhaps they were anxious to see him again; perhaps even delighted to see him again. But, at the same time, they were shocked by what they found when they saw him. As they approached him from a distance, “they did not recognize him.” Their response was lament as they “wept aloud” and then sat with him for seven days in silence (Job 2:12-13).

It seems likely that the question “Is this Naomi?” elicits both delight and shock. Bethlehem’s women are both happy to see Naomi again but shocked by her situation and appearance. Naomi returns, but she is not happy. She returns home but comes home empty.

Lament (Ruth 1:20-21)

Naomi rejects her name. While the women ask, “Is this Naomi?,” Naomi refuses the name, which means something like “pleasant.” When she left for Moab, her name was appropriate as she left with a husband and two sons, but now she returns with only a Moabite daughter-in-law. Her life is no longer pleasant but unpleasant. She does not return as one blessed but returns as one seemingly cursed.

We may hear her lament in three stages.

First, she offers a substitute for her name. “Call me Mara,” she says. The Hebrew word means “bitter” as in unpleasant or harsh, perhaps even cheated or filled with angry resentment. The word pictures a broken women who recognizes her situation. It is hopeless. She does not expect to see happiness again (much like Job in Job 7:7).

Mara is her new name because the Almighty has treated her bitterly (the verb form of the noun mara). The Almighty (el shaddai), the one who exercises power in the world without limits, has chosen bitterness for Naomi. This is not the normal name for God in the historical books of the Hebrew Bible. For example, it only occurs nine times in the Torah. However, thirty-one times in Job.

If the use of Shaddai, the parallel of the shock of the women and Job’s friends, and their common tragedies is some indication of the connection between the stories of Ruth and Job, the use of the word mara (bitterness) is another link. Here Job’s pain that parallels the pain of Naomi.

• Why is light given to one in misery, and life to the bitter in soul (Job 3:20)?
• I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul (Job 7:11).
• I loathe my life; I will give free utterance to my complaint; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul (Job 10:1)
• Today also my complaint is bitter; his hand is heavy despite my groaning (Job 23:2).
• As God lives, who has taken away my right, and the Almighty, who has made my soul bitter . . . (Job 27:2).

For Naomi, like for Job, God is responsible for her bitter circumstances.

• Why have you made me your target? Why have I become a burden to you (Job 7:20)?
• Your hands fashioned and made me; and now you turn and destroy me (Job 10:8)?
• Whom among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this (Job 12:9)?
• Surely God has worn me out; he has made desolate all my company (Job 16:7).
• God has made my heart faint; the Almighty has terrified me (Job 23:16).
• Because God has loosed my bowstring and humbled me . . . (Job 30:11).
• You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me (Job 30:21).

Naomi sits on the ash-heap with Job. Both sit in bitterness, and they both acknowledge God’s responsibility for their tragic circumstances.

Her second complaint is the contrast between how she left Bethlehem and how she returned. She left full but has returned empty (for which Yahweh is responsible!). She left with husband and sons but returned only with a Moabite daughter-in-law. Interestingly, what God has done to Naomi (in her perspective) is what Eliphaz (one of Job’s friends) accuses Job of doing: “You have sent widows away empty-handed, and the arms of the orphans you have crushed” (Job 22:9).

At the same time, Yahweh does return Naomi. She returns empty, but she does return. The significance of the word “return” deserves comment (see below). Yahweh brings Naomi back to Bethlehem, her home and the land of promise.

Her third complaint raises the question why anyone would still call her Naomi. Perhaps the women of Bethlehem should have recognized the disconnect between the name Naomi (which means pleasant) and her circumstances. The best name for her now, according to Naomi, is Mara because “the Almighty has brought calamity upon” her.

The term “calamity” also provides some parallels to Job. The verb translated “has brought calamity” is from the Hebrew verb which, literally, means “to do evil.” The Hebrew verb/noun may refer to moral evil, but it may also simply refer to trouble or tragic circumstances. I have highlighted the English word that translates the Hebrew term.

• Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad? (Job 2:10)
• Now when Job’s three friends heard of all these troubles that had come upon him (Job 2:11).
• But when I looked for good, evil came; and when I waited for light, darkness came (Job 30:26).
• They showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him (Job 42:11).

Ruth and Job sit in the same place. They have experienced calamity (trouble), and they both believe God is responsible for their situation.

In his circumstance, Job had no hope. “My eye will never again see good,” Job lamented (Job 7:7). The fog of suffering clouded Job’s vision, and he expected death rather than anything good.

Naomi comes to Bethlehem with a similar vision of life. She has no hope of a husband or more children, as she previously told her daughters-in-law. She does not come home in hope but in despair, lament, and bitterness.

Her life is no longer “pleasant” but “bitter” (mara).

Return (Ruth 1:22)

The Hebrew term for “return” is used twelve times in chapter 1 (1:6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 21-22). While this is a way of talking about physical movement back and forth between Judah and Moab, it is also a theological comment.

“Return” reminds readers within Israel of the return of the people of Israel from exile. In that context, the return means that God welcomes people home (cf. Zephaniah 3:20; Zechariah 10:6,10; Ezra 2:1; 2 Chronicles 6:25). In fact, God is the implied mover behind the return. God may have brought trouble upon Naomi, but now God brings her home. God has brought Naomi home from her exile in Moab.

Moreover, Naomi returns at a time of prosperity, the harvest. The famine is over! Does this portend that Naomi’s fortunes might be reversed? Might her life move from bitterness to pleasantness. If the famine is over for Judah, what does this mean for Naomi?

The answer to that question lies in Ruth the Moabite, who is identified as such five times out the thirteen uses of her name (1:22; 2:2, 21; 4:5, 10). God will bring joy back into the life of Naomi through a Moabite, a barren widow. And that is shocking!

Widowed (Ruth 1:6-18)

Naomi Begins to Return to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:6-7)

Then she started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the LORD had considered his people and given them food. So she set out from the place where she had been living, she and her two daughters-in-law, and they went on their way to go back to the land of Judah.

When Naomi hears that Yahweh had “considered” or “visited” the people of Judah and ended the famine, she decided to return to Judah and resettle there. We don’t know how long it was after the deaths of her husband and sons that God “visited” Judah, but the moment must have been remarkable. Living in Moab, whose God was Chemosh, Naomi heard that Yahweh, the God of Israel, had renewed life in Judah by gifting them food. The famine was over because Yahweh acted in grace (gift) toward God’s own people. This news moved Naomi to return and, at least for the moment, her daughters-in-law accompanied her with every intent, apparently, to resettle with her in Judah.

The verb translated “considered” (or, visited) often refers to God’s encounter with Israel. This visitation can be either negative (like punishment or discipline as in Exodus 34:7; Isaiah 13:11) or positive (gracious as in Exodus 4:31; Psalm 65:9; 106:4). Whatever the case, it changes the situation. God “visits” in the sense that God acts. God does something. In Ruth 1:6, God graced Judah with the end to their famine. God gave them food or, literally, “bread” (lechem). Ultimately, Naomi returns to Bethlehem (meaning “house of bread”) from Moab because God has once again graced Judah, including Bethlehem, with bread (“food”). God had not forgotten the people. Just as in other contexts during the period of the Judges, God returns to deliver and renew life with the people.

Understandably, widowed and without sons, Noami decides to return to her homeland. We don’t know what happens to an Israelite widow in Moab who has no sons. She may have lost all ability to sustain herself, though she still had two daughters-in-law. However, she recognizes Yahweh’s grace to Judah and hopes, perhaps against hope, to participate in it herself as one whose family roots are in Bethlehem. But she has no assurances, and it is a risky journey. Her tragic circumstances do not encourage hope but perhaps the journey is based on some hope, or perhaps it is more like going home to die. What she says to the daughter-in-laws in the next section might lead us to think it is more the latter rather than the former.

Naomi Urges her Daughter-in-Laws to Stay in Moab (Ruth 1:8-13)

But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back each of you to your mother’s house. May the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. The LORD grant that you may find security, each of you in the house of your husband.” Then she kissed them, and they wept aloud. They said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband tonight and bear sons, would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the LORD has turned against me.”

Three times Noami encourages here daughters-in-law to “turn back” (the verb is used six times in Ruth 1:8-13; thirteen times in chapter 1 [“return”]).

• Turn back, and Naomi blesses them (1:8-9)
• Turn back, and Naomi questions them (1:11)
• Turn back, and Naomi theologizes with them (1:12-13)

We don’t know how far they had traveled; perhaps they were on the verge of crossing the Jordan or entering Judah. Whatever the case, Naomi announces it is time for them to separate. She will go to Bethlehem, and the daughters-in-law must return to their “mother’s house.” If they return to their “mother’s house,” they might perhaps find future husbands. But if they continue with Naomi, she has no sons to offer them.

This is a remarkable sacrifice on her part. Her two daughters-in-law are her only support system, the only family she has in Moab. This reflects Naomi’s compassion for her daughters and perhaps even her own hopelessness.

In her first word, Naomi blesses them: “May Yahweh deal kindly (hesed) with you.” This is an important moment in the story. First, Naomi has not lost faith in her God to whom she still prays and offers blessings in Yahweh’s name. Second, she blesses them with the sort of experience from Yahweh that they have showed her and her sons. These Moabite daughters-in-law have been people of hesed (loving kindness; loyalty); Moabites can exhibit a key aspect of Yahweh’s life. Yahweh has an effective presence in Moab through these women; the borders of Judah and Moab do not delimit God’s presence. Hesed is a pervasive and central description of the God of Israel (see Psalm 136; Exodus 34:6-7). These Moabite women have practiced hesed, a quality that fundamentally describes Yahweh. Third, Naomi wants them to find “security” (literally, “rest”) in the home of another husband. Her wish prayer—that Yahweh would give them—is for peace and prosperity in the land of Moab with new husbands. Her heart only has grace and blessing for her daughters-in-law.

Both daughters, however, refuse to return to their mother’s house but press to return with Naomi to her people.

Naomi’s second word to her daughters-in-law questions their decision. “Why will you go with me?” Their refusal to return to Moab appears irrational to Naomi. There is no reason for them to continue with her. Their prospects are better in Moab than in Judah. It is better to return to their mother’s house in Moab than to continue with a widow into Judah. She has no more sons to offer them.

Naomi’s third word offers a piece of theology as a rationale for returning to Moab instead of continuing with her to Judah. While she expands the argument that there are no prospects for a husband arising from her womb, her final point concerns Naomi’s relationship with Yahweh.

Her reasoning is progressive: she has no husband, and even if she gets a husband and bear sons, would you wait until they were of marriageable age? Can you wait that long to marry? That is a lot of “ifs.” In other words, it is unimaginable to Naomi that her daughters-in-law would return with her in hopes of finding rest with her house. Even if rest is possible, it is years away. It is better if they return to their mother’s house and seek husbands in their own land and culture.

Her theological statement, however, is the clincher. It is the climactic point. The daughters-in-law must “turn back” because “it has been more bitter for me than for you,” and this is “because the hand of Yahweh has turned against me.”

Her bitterness—a theme to which we will return in the next lesson due to her statement in Ruth 1:20—is greater than her daughters-in-law. This certainly includes her multiple losses—a husband and two sons, though the daughters-in-law also lost husbands and a father-in-law. All three women lost their support system. Nevertheless, Naomi’s loses are “more bitter,” more tragic, though all losses are devastating. But her sense of “more bitter” is grounded in her next statement.

Naomi attributes here tragic circumstance, her bitterness, to the hand of Yahweh. She attributes, in some sense, her losses to Yahweh’s action or power.

Yahweh is still her God. She blessed her daughters-in-law in the name of Yahweh. At the same time, she believes God is responsible for her tragedies that generated her bitterness. The phrase “hand of Yahweh” refers to divine acts or divine sovereignty (see Numbers 11:23; Joshua 4:24; Isaiah 41:20; 59:1). Job, who himself was bitter (Job 7:11; 9:18; 10:1; 27:2), had a similar perspective: “Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?” (Job 12:9).

While I will say more about this in next week’s lesson, it seems that Naomi did not want her daughters-in-law to go to Judah with her because of her bitterness which is the result of the hand of Yahweh. In other words, perhaps she means that the daughters-in-law will find rest in Moab but not in Judah because to go to Judah is to continue with Naomi in her bitter situation. Perhaps she means that the daughters-in-law should not subject themselves to the ongoing bitterness in which Naomi lives because the hand of Yahweh is against her. She does not want her daughters-in-law to share her ongoing bitterness and Yahweh’s seeming hostility towards her. They will not find rest in Judah with Naomi because Yahweh’s hand has, literally, “gone out” against Namoi.

The Daughter-in-Laws Choose (Ruth 1:14-18)

Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. So she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said,

            “Do not press me to leave you

                        or to turn back from following you!

            Where you go, I will go;

                        Where you lodge, I will lodge;

            your people shall be my people,

                        and your God my God.

            Where you die, I will die—

                        there will I be buried.

            May the LORD do thus and so to me,

                        and more as well,

            if even death parts me from you!”

When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.

Orpah kissed Naomi, but Ruth clung to her. Orpah turned back “to her people and to her gods,” and Ruth embraces Naomi’s people and God. Orpah returned to Moab, and Ruth continued with Naomi.

Both Orpah and Ruth have great affection for Naomi. Orpah kisses her and returns to Moab. She doesn’t leave Naomi in anger; she does not reject Namoi. She surrenders to her wish and accepts Naomi’s blessing. Indeed, from every reasonable point of view, Orpah makes the most sensible choice, as difficult as it was. Orpah is not critiqued for her decision; she submits to her mother-in-law’s direction. She does exactly as Naomi blessed her to do. She leaves with Naomi’s blessing.

Yet, Ruth “clung” to her, which is an intimate verb reflecting a close relationship (Genesis 2:24). Ruth is immovable; she is going to hang on to Naomi. This is beyond the bounds of duty. There is no obligation. It is gracious; it is Ruth’s gift to Naomi.

Instead of returning to her mother’s house, Ruth commits to sharing Naomi’s future: where she lives, the people among whom she lives, the God she worships, and the ground where she will be buried.

It is a wonderful statement of loyalty and commitment. It arises out of her hesed for Naomi, which arises from Yahweh’s own work in that family. This is the sort of commitment (covenant) Yahweh has made the people of Judah, and Ruth commits to share Naomi’s people and God. It is a commitment until death parts them, and even in death, Ruth will remain in the land and be buried in the place where Naomi is buried. Her commitment is total.

Ruth confirms this commitment with an oath using the name of Yahweh. It is a self-imprecation: “may Yahweh kill me if I don’t keep my promise to you.”

Perhaps her invocation of the name of Yahweh—whose hand had brought bitterness to Naomi’s life and in whose name Naomi had blessed her daughters-in-law—convinced Naomi that there was no use in trying to persuade Ruth otherwise. She swore an oath in the name of Yahweh, and there is no taking that back. Consequently, she said nothing else to her about it.

So, Naomi and Ruth continued their journey to Judah and ultimately Bethlehem. The widow with her barren daughter-in-law return to the land which Yahweh has recently “visited” with grace. What will they find there?