Ruth demonstrates the fidelity she promised Naomi in Ruth 1:16-18. Having committed to obeying Naomi in v5 she now proceeds to do exactly what Naomi instructed – the Hebrew has the nuance of exact and entire obedience[1]. But once at the threshingfloor Ruth dramatically expands the scope of Naomi’s plan. Ruth – not Boaz – provides the plan and the Moabite widow interprets scripture with love to provide a novel solution to Naomi’s problem.
Boaz was in a contented sleep as anticipated by Naomi. Commentators note that the expression doesn’t specifically prove this was due to wine as opposed to a general feeling of wellbeing[2], [3],[4]. However the JPS commentary states Naomi’s description of the evening containing “eating and drinking” in Ruth 3:3 as strongly implying alcohol would be involved at least to some extent[5].
Naomi sent Ruth off on a mission which put her in a vulnerable position and dependent on Boaz for action and resolution. However despite promising exact obedience to Naomi’s instructions in Ruth 3:9 she will deviate significantly from Naomi’s instruction. Boaz is asking questions and Ruth is providing the plan.
Responding to the startled Boaz, Ruth identifies as a servant. The specific word is a higher status than her previously claimed subservient labourer status in Ruth 2:13. The NET notes suggest this is a deliberate positioning of herself as lowly but within the realm of one of who could be married[6].
Ruth’s next words are literally:
spread your wing [or skirt] over your servant (NET notes)
The NET translates the initial part of Ruth’s request as “Marry your servant”. The NRSV has more literally “Spread your cloak over your servant”
There is a little quirk in the text here which we should be clear on. The Heb word translated wing (or skirt) appears to be somewhat distorted. The MT takes it as a plural (hence wings) whereas the LXX and Syriac take the singular (ie skirt)[7]. The same word (singular) and idea is in Ezek 16:8 where God figuratively spreads his skirt over Israel as part of his marriage proposal. Comparative material from Assyrian-Babylonian marriage (and divorce) documents show the same use of spreading the skirt or hem as a marriage proposal[8]. Ruth and Ezekiel have the same use for establishing a marriage and Deut 23:1 has the same reverse use – uncovering or removing the skirt of another’s marriage was to desecrate it[9].
Exposition which connects Ruth’s proposal here to Boaz’s commendation that Ruth was trusting under the wings of Yahweh in Ruth 2:12 is not without foundation. However there is an alteration in language, one is singular ‘skirt’ whereas the previous commendation with its religious overtones is ‘wings’. Accepting that difference let’s run the phrases over again. Boaz blesses Ruth for trusting in Israel’s God. But that blessing didn’t translate to personal action – at least not enough. Ruth takes Boaz’s wings language blessing and expands it to a specific request – spread your singular wing ie your skirt over me. Boaz becomes how God fulfils the blessing. Perhaps we could be the channel of God’s blessing a little faster and with a little less prompting sometimes.
1. Ruth’s radical hesed
Firstly I accept the caution Bush provides of there being some details of which we are somewhat ignorant given there is undoubtedly significant cultural context which we are unable to access[10]. However that caution can’t invalidate the clear narrative intent.
Ruth provides Boaz with a reason to act on her marriage proposal, a reason which hasn’t been laid out elsewhere:
for you are a guardian of the family interests Ruth 3:9c NET
Boaz is the goel – the family redeemer, the near kinsman. While Naomi is aware of Boaz’s potential as the redeemer the evening was explicitly about providing for Ruth. Ie the plan, as the emphasis on Ruth’s presentation makes clear, was marriage. In Naomi’s scheme it was Boaz who would provide the answers, Ruth was instructed to act and leave the words up to Boaz. But Ruth is a remarkable person. While Naomi’s scheme is designed to provide security – a husband – for Ruth, the Moabite widow expands the scope of the rescue operation[11]. Ruth introduces the goel – the financial redeemer –to the discussion to redeem the land to provide explicitly for Naomi[12] and seemingly of an heir to carry on Naomi’s family.
Ruth’s vow to follow and support Naomi has not been forgotten. In a surprising twist
Ruth combines two practices which are normally thought to be separate, namely, the redemption of familial property and the procreation of an heir for a deceased relative[13]
Explaining these rules requires a short diversion. Without the legal background we could misread Ruth 3:9 as romance rather than covenant responsibility.
2. The background legal framework – levirate marriage and the near-kinsman redeemer
A pre-Law example of the Levirate marriage is found in Genesis 38 (the incident with Tamar). We have Hittite variations on the idea[14] and Middle Assyrian[15]. For Israel the practice is codified in Deut 25:5-10. In Deuteronomy the levirate marriage was:
- Applied when the brothers lived together
- The responsibility of the brother of the dead man
- The resultant son was reckoned as the son of the dead brother
- Failure to perform the duty of a brother-in-law resulted in public shame (removal of a shoe and spitting in the face)
Interesting later rabbinic teaching would take the preceding context of not muzzling a working ox to suggest the widow could refuse the marriage[16].
Quite apart from the duty of a brother-in-law was the goel – or financial redeemer. These rules are set out in Lev 25 although scholars emphasise that there are some elements of practice around the goel laws which escape us[17]. From Leviticus 25 the obligation of the goel/near kinsman redeemer was to:
- buy back the family property when a relative got into financial trouble seemingly based on a calculation of future profits until the next Jubilee year. Lev 25:25
- Buy the freedom of a relative in slavery Lev 25:48-49
- Possibly avenging murder Num 35:19
While both laws were concerned with the continuation of family, they were in no way the same law. And the responsibility of a brother-in-law under the levirate marriage in Deut 25 didn’t strictly apply to Ruth’s situation (and let’s not forget Deut 23:3 banned Moabites from entering the assembly for 10 generations).
3. Ruth’s legal innovation
Ruth is characterised by hesed, loving faithfulness that goes beyond what is expected.
The narrator, Boaz, and later the elders in the city gate, all approve of this novel solution. She isn’t bound by the law but correctly applies the spirit of the Levirate and Goel to draw the two strands together.[18] While Hubbard[19] and Campbell Edwards[20] suggest Ruth’s solution was likely the common understanding of the laws at the time the reaction of the other characters belies this assertion. I suspect they are taking the acceptance of Ruth’s proposal as evidence of it pre-existing rather than crediting her resourcefulness as the characters do. Ruth clearly goes beyond the law, and disregards some objections of the law, because as Rasmussen concludes Ruth understood:
that the spirit of the law is to provide for widows, the poor, and foreigners[21]
As Curtis James notes in one innovative sentence Ruth combines two laws and expands the scope of Naomi’s plans[22].
Marry your servant, for you are a guardian of the family interests Ruth 3:9b.
The Torah’s goel texts don’t explicitly command marriage but Ruth argues redemption must include raising up an heir. Ruth isn’t after just a husband. Do this because you are the goel she says. So Ruth moves well beyond Naomi’s plan to invite Boaz to propose marriage. The (presumed by her society) barren woman is seeking offspring in her dead husband’s name and financial redemption for Naomi. Boaz takes Ruth’s innovative plan and it enables the dramatic resolution in the city gate Ruth 4:5 (where it is clear that Ruth has combined both laws).
4. Radical hesed applies scripture with grace
Ruth demonstrates an approach to scripture which is instructive. The spirit of the word, reading through hesed, reading through love is key. This is how the Mosaic Law actually worked as Hubbard states the laws:
constitute instructions about sample or crucial topics from which inferences about all other cases are to be drawn. Their goal is more to inculcate Israel’s fundamental value system in its people than to provide handy legal references for judicial bodies[23]
John Walton based on comparison to ANE law codes and then investigation of the Torah writes it is a:
collection of examples that combine to form a description of the desired established order…these sayings embody standards of wisdom for the ordering of society within the covenant relationship that Yahweh had with Israel.[24]
Some conservative scholars push back on the breadth of Walton’s perspective but even they acknowledge the gaps in legislation necessitated a function of the corpus also being instructional wisdom to cover the gaps[25].
Jesus demonstrated in the sermon on the mount that the Old Testament needed to be read through a lens of love. “You have heard” was turned into “but I say”. The parable of the good Samaritan demonstrated that a duty of love is owed to all. Yet OT proof texts could be marshalled to limit say the opposite (only people in the land were neighbours per Lev 19:34, or more narrowly only people with the right bloodlines Lev 19:18 and Psalm 139:21-22 claims hating the wicked is a virtue in stark contrast to Jesus’ teaching).
James in Acts 15 will pluck a verse from the LXX in Amos 9:11 to demonstrate the Gentiles should be included. Yet the LXX is unquestionably a mistranslation of the Hebrew MT and completely changes the sense[26]. Despite this James’ intention and understanding of God’s greater purpose was correct even if his proof text was incorrect.
How we read and apply scripture is a choice. The Mosaic Law, and beyond, is wisdom literature not a chemical formula which cannot be altered. A good schoolmaster teaches principles and problem solving, teaches how to think and why to think that way. A good schoolmaster doesn’t restrict thinking into a single paradigm or authority source. This is how Jesus and the apostles used their bible.
We can exclude Moabites for 10 generations or we can stitch two laws together about caring for vulnerable relatives. One approach snuffs out the line of Christ midway through his lineage and the other leads straight to the Kingdom. Is our reading advancing the kingdom?
While we do not want to be in a situation where every man does what is right in his own eyes, we also don’t want to enable selective reading being used to make what we are doing sound right in our own ears. And examples historically of simplistic readings being weaponised to enforce preference, culture or power are not hard to find in most communities.
Ruth “read” with innovative love, just as Jesus did. We need to make that choice. If we thought of Scripture more as wisdom literature and less as black letter law our relationship with the text – and more importantly our relationship with its author – would be healthier. To say nothing of our relationship with our neighbours.
by Daniel Edgecombe
[1] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 158.
[2] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 161.
[3] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 208.
[4] 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), 148.
[5] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), 52.
[6] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005). See also comments in K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges, Ruth, ed. Terry Muck, Revised Edition, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 580
[7] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 164.
[8] Paul A. Kruger, “The Hem of the Garment in Marriage. The Meaning of the Symbolic Gesture in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek 16:8,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 12 (1984): 85–86.
[9] W. Dommershausen, “כָּנָף,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 231.
[10] Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 167–168.
[11] Carolyn Custis James, Finding God in the Margins: The Book of Ruth, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al., Transformative Word (Bellingham, WA; Burlington, ON: Lexham Press; St. George’s Centre, 2018), 68–69.
[12] 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), 57.
[13] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 49.
[14] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament , 3rd ed. with Supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 196.
[15] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 25:5–10.
[16] “In b. Yebam. 4a the muzzling of the ox in Deut. 25:4 is applied metaphorically to the issue of levirate marriage, which is treated in the immediately following verses (25:5–10) to support the halakic view that a widow must not be forced to enter into a levirate marriage with a man whom she finds objectionable. The argument is based on relating Deut. 25:4 to the issue discussed in Deut. 25:5–10 through the principle of interpreting one text in the light of another text in close proximity. In doing so, the rabbis seem to be seeing a relationship between the various laws at the beginning of Deut. 25 that is similar to that which we proposed above: if an ox is free to eat and is not to be constrained as it labors, a woman who suffers the loss of her husband is not to be constrained to marry someone against her will. To “muzzle” her would be to force her to endure even greater hardship than she has already experienced.” Ciampa, R. E., & Rosner, B. S. (2007). 1 Corinthians. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (p. 720). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos.
[17] Hubbard, R. L. (1991). The Go’el in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution, 3.
[18] Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary, trans. Edward Broadbridge, First edition, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 76.
[19] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 50–51.
[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), 137.
[21] Hannah Rasmussen, “Finding ‘The Proverbs 31 Woman,’” Priscilla Papers 32, no. 2 (2018): 24
[22] Carolyn Custis James, Finding God in the Margins: The Book of Ruth, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al., Transformative Word (Bellingham, WA; Burlington, ON: Lexham Press; St. George’s Centre, 2018), 74–76.
[23] Robert L. Hubbard, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 51
[24] John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019), 45.
[25] Phillip S. Marshall, “Old Testament. Review of The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton,” ed. Peter Lau, Themelios 44, no. 2 (2019): 370.
[26] I realise this might be an uncomfortable statement but it is based on solid scholarship. “the Greek [of Amos] is, for the most part, a faithful rendition of a Hebrew text that was likely very similar to the text preserved in the MT…The most significant difference between the OG and the Hebrew is the portion of text that is underlined: the rest/remainder of the peoples may seek [me] for may possess the remnant of Edom. Where did this translation come from? Is it totally due to a theological point (Tendenz) that the translator wished to introduce, or did the translator misread the Vorlage (the source text from which the translation was made), or was the source text for the OG different from what we have in the MT? We will deal with these matters in ascending order of difficulty. Though there is always the possibility that an alternative Vorlage is the source of a variant reading in the OG, it is also a question of probability. How likely is it that an alternative Vorlage is the best explanation? In this instance, the reading of the OG seems to be different because of an understanding of the Hebrew text rather than because the Hebrew text was different from the MT. The use of κατάλοιποι the rest/remainder to render שְׁאֵרִית remnant is a common equivalent in the LXX. However, the difficulty is that remnant is the object in the Hebrew whereas the rest/remainder has become the subject in the Greek. The second difficulty is that the remnant of Edom has become the rest of the peoples. Here the translator has read the Hebrew word אֱדוֹם Edom as if it were a plural form of אָדָם people/humanity. So, the translation the rest of the peoples is related very closely to the Hebrew text and could represent the translator’s intention to provide a faithful rendition, though there is the problem that the rest of the peoples has become the subject of the Greek subordinate clause. Turning to the verb we find that ἐκζητέω seek translates ירשׁ possess. This is a unique rendering in the LXX and is a departure from the sense of the Hebrew. Yet it is interesting to note that ἐκζητέω in the LXX most frequently renders דרשׁ seek (73x). The difference between the two Hebrew words ירשׁ possess and דרשׁ seek is only the first letter. There is also the possibility that the translator read בקשׁ, which is rendered by ἐκζητέω 29x, but that would require the translator to confuse two consonants, ב and ק for ד and ר.” McLay, T. (2003). The use of the Septuagint in New Testament research (pp. 20–21). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.. See also Law, T. M. (2013). When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 104). New York: Oxford University Press and Eidevall, G. (2017). Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (J. J. Collins, Ed.) (Vol. 24G, p. 33). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Living Faith 