The book of Ruth demonstrates God works in people’s lives. Not necessarily in big showy ways and frequently the results will not be seen until the Kingdom. The great storyteller keeps explicit action of God very much in the background, in the shadows. Thereby as Younger notes in the NIVAC:
The book of Ruth, or rather of Naomi, features repeated build-ups and disappointments. The women return to Bethlehem but in all the excitement of Naomi’s return there is nothing to assuage her bitterness. After kindling much expectation in Chapter 2, Boaz does nothing further and the women are left alone, facing an uncertain hard future. The logical question for Naomi and Ruth now is ‘Where is God? What is He doing?’.
The measure of a person’s faith is not found in the miracles that he or she can wrest from the hand of God nor in his or her personal health and prosperity, but in demonstrating ethical character[1]
This is not what we want to hear. We like the predictability of do good get good. A God that rewards now, that reliably slays the giants, parts the sea and solves our problems is an attractive proposition. But transactional faith isn’t perfected faith. This does not develop the character God wants. Ethical character – or to use the term repeated in the book of Ruth – Hesed/loving kindness – is how we live, the integrity we show not the material things or miracles we perceive. The apostle Paul puts hesed in practical terms:
love is patient and kind; it rejoices with the truth; it always protects, trusts, hopes and perseveres 1 Cor 13:4‑7
Ruth and Naomi at the start of Ruth 3 are persevering. Naomi will now take the initiative and what transpires in the night‑time scene of chapter 3 will challenge us with questions of loyalty, boldness, sexuality, integrity and patience.
Naomi seeks rest for Ruth (3:1)
The third chapter begins with Naomi taking the initiative:
My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? Ruth 3:1
Naomi takes the initiative in Chapter 3, issuing a series of instructions to Ruth. This is a change. Naomi has been passive since the return to Bethlehem. But now she acts in Ruth’s long-term interests. True this also benefited Naomi[2] but her focus was the younger woman, she wasn’t obligated to do this[3].
Perhaps Naomi believes that Ruth can’t approach Boaz openly because of her status and nationality, hence the need for secrecy[4]. But Naomi’s scheme is odd. Why didn’t she just meet Boaz in the street or some location and talk to him? They were relatives through marriage. It wouldn’t seem improper – certainly not compared to this plan! This demonstrates that Naomi thinks she can’t appeal to any legal foundation.
She does not call Boaz to a meeting with the elders at the town gate and present her case; instead she resorts to a trick by sending the young widow down to the threshing floor to lie beside Boaz at night. Consequently the reader must expect that from Naomi’s point of view there are other means to her end than the law.[5]
Naomi is not thinking of a Levirate marriage which would continue Elimelech’s line (after all the assumption was probably that Ruth was barren). She has previously identified Boaz as the financial redeemer – the near kinsman[6]. However this is not her plan this evening – this is not the language she uses to describe Boaz this time.
Naomi proposes to send Ruth at night to Boaz at the threshing floor. This was a questionable location:
the popular mind associated threshing floors with licentiousness[7]
And Hosea 9:1 suggests prostitutes were active in such locations. Yet Naomi is sending Ruth out there. While Daniel Block is at pains to minimise the suggestiveness of the entire enterprise of Naomi’s he must acknowledge Naomi:
has taken the agenda into her own hands, without any reference to YHWH and with a scheme that is ethically questionable at best[8]
Her instructions are certainly questionable. Yet this is precisely what makes Naomi relatable. Her theology is imperfect, bruised, and sometimes contradictory – like ours under stress. She blamed God for her emptiness in chapter 1; now she acts as though the outcome depends entirely on human initiative. This blend of desperation and love is Naomi’s form of hesed. Hesed is not tidy. It is not theoretical. It is the fierce, loyal love that risks reputation for the sake of another.
Her plan is not perfect. But her love is real. Naomi has lost everything. She is the female Job. Her future remains incredibly bleak and while she may have had hope when the meeting between Boaz and Ruth first met that hope had faded. Nothing happened. It seemed like God would work but then silence – again. Genuine love under pressure doesn’t always result in great plans. Let’s not be judging too harshly the Naomi acting in desperation in our circles. Because God, who works through cracked vessels, will weave her flawed courage into redemption.
Naomi’s risky plan Ruth 3:3-5)
Naomi tells Ruth to: (a) wash herself, (b) anoint herself, (c) put on her cloak, and (d) go down to the threshing floor without making herself known until Boaz has finished eating and drinking.
After bathing Ruth is to anoint herself. This most likely is with perfumed oil. As the JPS commentary notes, olive oil which was costly was used by most people on special occasions. It could be mixed with fragrance depending on your wealth[9] Oil with a fragrance was effectively a cosmetic to cover the normal human odour given the absence of modern plumbing and hygiene[10].
Naomi also instructs Ruth about her clothing. Now the Hebrew for clothing here is used in a very generic sense including the standard outing coat possessed by most people (see uses in Gen 35:2, Deut 8:4 and Josh 7:6). Despite the phrase being translated as ‘best clothes’ or similar (eg “get dressed up” in the NET) it doesn’t really carry this specific meaning.[11] While Ruth was poor, Naomi’s instruction only makes sense if there is something different to her ordinary attire here which is very much reflected in the Midrash commentary[12]. While historically some commentators have linked these instructions with the bridal language of Ezek 16:10-12 the preparations and clothing described fall far short of that and are more akin to David stopping a period of mourning in 2 Sam 12:20[13]. Naomi is MORE likely to be instructing Ruth to exit her widow’s mourning garb (cp Gen 38:14, 19) and make it clear she was an attractive woman available for marriage.
The crucial element of Naomi’s plan is in Ruth 3:4
When he gets ready to go to sleep, take careful notice of the place where he lies down. Then go, uncover his legs, and lie down beside him. He will tell you what you should do.
These instructions sound suggestive in English but even more so in Hebrew. Commentators have noted that many Hebrew words in this scene carry double meanings. The verb gālah (“to uncover”) and the noun margelōt (“place of feet”) can have sexual connotations, and the verb šāḵab (“to lie down”) can refer either to sleep or sexual union. Frequent repetition of the verb yadaʿ (“to know”) evokes both literal knowledge and the euphemism of sexual intimacy. Block notes all the Hebrew words have clear sexual connotations – particularly uncovering the feet which is often a euphemism for genitals – albeit he claims these should not colour our reading[14] Hubbard notes the same[15]. Bush in the Word Biblical Commentary attempts to refute the link between uncovering the feet and the genitals by pointing to the Hebrew being a unique spelling[16] however this argument is rejected as trivial by others[17].
We don’t have any basis to accuse Naomi of commanding a striptease (yes that suggestion has been made[18]) but the language is unquestionably sexually charged. As the UBS Handbook observes while:
there is no clear evidence that this expression is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as has been suggested by some scholars.* On the other hand, the Hebrew terms translated “uncover,” “feet,” and “lie down” are often associated with sexual acts, and therefore the expression lends itself to this type of interpretation. Even some ancient translators tried in several ways to weaken or alter the meaning[19]
Ruth 3 is one of the most artful narratives in the Hebrew Bible. Its scenes unfold over one night at a threshing floor, yet the chapter condenses complex social customs, subtle wordplay and ethical dilemmas. Edward notes that the:
The circumstances at the threshing floor are ambiguous, purposefully so. The indicators of this ambiguity swarm throughout the episode.[20]
And that the significant volume of double entendre is not to titillate but rather to highlight the sexually charged nature of the incident and the high moral choices made by the participants.
Ruth takes in all these instructions – with all the language Naomi says and simply responds with
I will do everything you have told me to do Ruth 3:5
Naomi doesn’t articulate how the plan will lead to financial security. She did identify Boaz as their kinsman redeemer, the goel, in Ruth 2:20. But how this translates to anything Naomi leaves up to Boaz entirely.
But this course of action was loaded with risk for Ruth as Bush in the Word Biblical Commentary notes[21]. If discovered she would face social disgrace. Even if undiscovered she would still be vulnerable should Boaz choose to take advantage of her. In a sexually charged plan Ruth’s path to a good outcome seemed pretty narrow – and essentially consisted of hoping Boaz would be righteous and come up with a plan.
1. Bible echoes and the double entendres of Ruth 3:2-5
The story of Ruth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. In the narrative flow of God’s plan from Joshua, Judges then onwards to David the book of Ruth forms an important link. As previously mentioned in these studies Boaz is the template covenant keeping upright Israelite from Bethlehem Judah who forms a natural contrast with the Benjamites and house of Saul. While the Benjamites were associated with the gang rape and murder of a woman in Judges 19-20 here we have Boaz acting nobly. There are two key background stories as noted by many others[22]
Ruth was a Moabite. Moab was conceived through Lot’s daughter making her older father drunk at night and initiating sex so she could continue the family line (Genesis 19). On Boaz’s side there was a similar murky history in the story of his ancestor Tamar. In Gen 38 this Canaanite woman dresses up and entices the older Judah, who didn’t recognise her, to have sex resulting in the birth of a child. Tamar in doing so was kind of tricking Judah into a Levirate relationship to get a child and secure her future. Tamar’s action was hardly righteous, but Judah commends her as more righteous – because of his behaviour leading up the encounter.
In Num 25:1-2 as Israel was about to enter the promised land the men start to engage in sexual immorality with the women of Moab which resulted in a plague and the death of 24,000 according to Num 25:9.
Now we have another stranger, a Moabite, planning on sneaking up to a Judahite who was asleep after having a few drinks. The whole language sets us up to be aware of the sexually charged nature of the encounter and hear the echoes of past stories. Given their history (and Boaz being the son of a reformed prostitute) we should hardly be surprised if history repeats itself.
The author of Ruth deliberately invites comparison and heightens the tension with the suggestive language. Yet the book of Ruth subverts the earlier narrative. Instead of drunkenness and incest, we see sobriety and righteousness; instead of exploitation, we see mutual hesed; instead of secrecy and shame, we see transparency and public resolution at the city gate. As the JPS notes:
Boaz’s restraint and readiness to undertake responsibility contrasts with Judah’s shirking his duty and with his sexual encounter with Tamar. Ruth’s dignified exchange with Boaz at night contrasts with Lot’s daughters’ seductions of drunken Lot[23]
The contrast emphasises God’s power to redeem a questionable lineage. While Deut 23:3 will exclude Moabites for ten generations Ruth is not only integrated into Israel but becomes an ancestor of David. The narrative invites us to reevaluate prejudices against outsiders. If God can graft a Moabite widow into the royal line, he can bring anyone into his covenant people. Thus, the story becomes a testimony to God’s grace overcoming historical stigma and broken families. Saints can come from any background, overcome any history to further God’s purpose.
But let’s pause and step back for a moment. This is not just about personal moral triumph. This is not just about people overcoming their circumstances to demonstrate integrity.
Ruth is set per Ruth 1:1 in the time when the Judges ruled. A time of national lawlessness. A people who neglected their God and broke covenant. Internationally it was a time of chaos and darkness, akin to the fall of the western Roman Empire.
Not only was Israel embroiled in chaos at this time, but most of the ancient world was as well. The Egyptians, Hittites and Mesopotamians were in general decline; Greece was undergoing political upheaval; and the Sea Peoples (which included the Philistines) were wreaking havoc in the Mediterranean basin. The reasons for these disruptions are difficult to determine, but environmental stresses of some kind in conjunction with a flurry of earthquakes may have contributed to the demise. The deterioration of the major superpowers allowed a number of smaller peoples and states to germinate in the Levant. Among them are the Moabites, Phoenicians, Syrians, Ammonites, Philistines and, of course, the Israelites[24]
It is against this local and international chaos that Ruth’s faithfulness – like Tamar and Rahab’s – quiet faithfulness and integrity in the field and on the threshing floor enables God’s global plan of salvation.
You may ask yourself ‘how is my life relevant to God?’ In each of these incidents we see an answer. God uses our faithfulness, even in difficult or risky situations, to further his plan. In each case these women link straight to David and then Jesus. God can and will take your life, obscure as it might be, and build his kingdom.
2. Sexual Integrity
The threshing floor was a place heavy with opportunity for indulgence. Naomi’s decision to place Ruth there remains puzzling, but what is clear is this: no disciple should deliberately put themselves in such a scenario. The Scriptures call us instead to flee temptation. Joseph provides the example when he escaped from Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39 (in stark contrast to Judah’s moral failure with Tamar in Genesis 38).
Jesus sharpened this teaching in the Sermon on the Mount:
“Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt 5:28 NET)
The Greek verb for “looking” here indicates
to look deliberately at a woman lustfully, i.e., desiring or imagining a sexual relationship with her, is to commit adultery in one’s heart[25]
Ie the Lord warns against a deliberate, sustained gaze — not simply noticing beauty, but a purposeful act of desire and imagination.[26] Faithful discipleship, therefore, means not only resisting lustful actions but rejecting the inner gaze that feeds them. Job provides the positive model: “I made a covenant with my eyes” (Job 31:1), a conscious choice to avoid lustful dwelling. Paul likewise exhorts us:
“Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires.” (Rom 13:13–14 NET)
Naomi’s scheme was sexually ambiguous and fraught with risk. History (and therefore community expectation) was stacked against a moral outcome. Had Boaz and Ruth indulged the response would have included phrases like ‘well no surprise given their history, you could hardly blame them in that circumstance, what human wouldn’t….’ Our society and the time of the Judges have a ready way of normalising and excusing variation from God’s way. Despite the charged environment Ruth and Boaz are in nothing happens. Sexual integrity is a choice. It is an acceptance that our father knows best. While human weakness and temptation are realities, His way is ultimately the best for our personal and family well-being.
Being spiritually engaged is a powerful antidote to temptation, but so too is a conscious building of guardrails. Not in a legalistic sense, but in the sober recognition that we are all flesh. Maintaining the covering of Christ requires avoiding situations that needlessly invite temptation.
Righteousness is not only for easy circumstances. It is for difficult ones. We all face circumstances – whatever the temptation – where it seems a natural choice, easy choice to follow our baser instincts to cross a line.
And the beauty of Ruth 3 is that where temptation was possible, integrity prevailed.
Ruth and Boaz on the threshing floor demonstrated personal integrity that surpassed history and overcome the risky environment they were in. They demonstrated integrity in the dark – when no one was watching – and that sort of integrity is what God works with. These two from questionable backgrounds become foundational to the family of God. The same can be true for all of us.
[1] K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges, Ruth, ed. Terry Muck, Revised Edition, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 591.
[2] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 50
[3] K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges, Ruth, ed. Terry Muck, Revised Edition, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 586–587.
[4] James McKeown, Ruth, ed. J. Gordon McConville and Craig Bartholomew, The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 56.
[5] Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, trans. Edward Broadbridge, First edition, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 75–76.
[6] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 147–148
[7] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 201
[8] Daniel I. Block, Ruth: The King Is Coming, ed. Daniel I. Block, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 168
[9] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 51
[10] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 150.
[11] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 151
[12] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 51
[13] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 151–152
[14] Daniel I. Block, Ruth: The King Is Coming, ed. Daniel I. Block, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 171–172.
[15] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 202–204.
[16] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 153.
[17] Jeremy Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 7D, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2016), 143.
[18] See Ellen van Wolde, Intertexuality: Ruth in Dialogue with Tamar, in “A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible – Approaches Methods and Strategies” Edited by Athalya Brenner and Carole Fontaine published by Sheffield
[19] Jan de Waard and Eugene Albert Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth, 2nd ed., UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), 49.
[20] Jr. Campbell Edward F., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, vol. 7, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 131–132.
[21] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 156–157.
[22] Jeremy Schipper, Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 7D, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2016), 41.
[23] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 55.
[24] Craig S. Keener and John H. Walton, eds., NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 449.
[25] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, vol. 33A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1993), 120.
[26] William R. G. Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 115–118.
Living Faith 