Women of the Bible 
Ruth: A Woman of Steadfast Love 
All Scriptures are taken from The New Standard American Bible, The Lockman Foundation,
 © 1995, used by permission.
By 
Kathryn Capoccia

I. WHO WAS SHE? (Rut. 1: 4-5; 2:5)
	A. She Was a Moabite
	B. She Was a Young Woman
	C. She Was a Widow
II. WHAT DID SHE DO? (Rut. 1:6-4:22; Mat. 1: 1-16; Luk. 3:23-38)
	A. She Loved Naomi
		1. She Committed Her Life to Naomi (Rut. 1:6-18)
			a. Naomi prepared to return to Bethlehem
			b. Naomi pleaded with her daughters-in-law
			c. Ruth pledged her allegiance to Naomi
		2. She Committed Her Labor to Naomi (Rut. 1:19-2:23)
			a. Ruth accompanied Naomi to Bethlehem
			b. Ruth assumed responsibility for sustaining Naomi 		
		3. She Committed Herself to Levirate Marriage for Naomi (Rut. 3:1-4:12)
			a. Naomi Proposed a Plan
			b. Ruth Proposed a Marriage
			c. Boaz Proposed a Redemption
	B. She Is Linked to the Messiah (Rut. 4:13-22; Mat. 1:1-16; Luk. 3:23-38)
		1. She Became the Mother of Obed
		2. She Became the Great Grandmother of David
		3. She Became the Ancestress of Jesus
III. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HER?
	
Ruth: A Woman of Steadfast Love

	The book of Ruth tells the true, beautiful account of the steadfast love, or hesed, of Moabitess Ruth for her widowed Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi. It has been called the greatest love story ever told. So devoted was Ruth to Naomi that she was willing to leave her family, her country, and her customs to remain with Naomi and to attend her. This hesed love is demonstrated not only by Ruth but by Boaz, her late husband’s near relative. And God Himself demonstrated His hesed as He cared for His chosen people, the Israelites. Interwoven in Ruth’s story is God’s providence in caring for Ruth and Naomi, and His sovereignty over events and time. And the love and acceptance of God for believers of all nations is also on display in this story as God incorporated Ruth into the history of Israel and into the bloodline of King David and the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The story takes place in the days of the Judges, in the 11th century B.C. At that time the apostate nation of Israel was under judgment from God for their apostasy and a severe famine in the land had caused a believing Israelite family to sojourn in the nearby pagan land of Moab. In the ten years they sojourned there Elimelech, the father of the family, died, his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, married and died also, and their three widows were left without men to provide for them or to protect them. As the story unfolds it also tells of the rescue, through the goel, kinsman-redeemer, of Naomi and Ruth through their kinsman, Boaz. He is a type of the Savior, Jesus Christ, who will ultimately redeem His people from the degradation and penalty of sin.

WHO WAS SHE?
She was a Moabite:  
“She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of the Moabites” (Rut. 2:5, 6).
Moab was a country bordering the eastern shore of the Dead Sea in what is today west-central Jordan, with Isreal to the west, the kingdoms of Ammon to the north and Edom to the south, and the Arabian desert to the east (occupied by the Aramean Tribes and Nabatu Tribes). In its strongest times Moab comprised a landmass sixty miles long and twenty-five miles wide; in its weakest times it was about half of that. During those prosperous times the northern border was the Wadi Nimrin, though most of the time it was the valley of the Wadi Arnon, and the southern border was Wadi-el-Hesa; however, these boundaries were fluid depending on circumstances. Moab was primarily inhabited on a plateau 4,300 feet above the level of the Dead Sea, or 2,857 feet above sea level. The plateau was fissured by various transverse gorges and valleys with arid land on the eastern side of the highland. There were fertile lowlands north of the Wadi Arnon and in the south-west corner of the country, but the highlands in the north-west were best for agriculture and the grazing of herds and flocks because of abundant rainfall and perennial springs.
The history of the Moabites is mostly found in the Bible and in a Moabite basalt stone inscription called the Mesha Stele (c. 830-820 B.C.), which deals with the period of Mesha, king of Moab, during the reigns of several Omride (descendants of Omri) kings in Samaria. The Moabites were a Semitic people, descended from Lot, the son of Terah (father of Abraham). As recorded in Genesis chapter nineteen, after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (c. 2070 B.C.) Lot and his two morally corrupt half-Canaanite daughters fled to a cave in the mountains above the Jordan Valley where Lot incestuously fathered a son, Moab (Hebrew, m’av, “from father”), by his eldest daughter when she made him drunk and lay with him; the people descended from them were the Moabites (Gen. 19:34-38). (Lot’s younger daughter also lay with him in like manner and gave birth to a son, Ben-ammi, the father of the Ammonites, Gen. 19: 35, 38.) According to the Bible the Moabites were later conquered by the Amorite king, Sihon (Num. 21:26), sometime before the Israelite exodus from Egypt (which possibly occurred in c. 1446 B.C.). Sihon was defeated by the returning Israelites and the tribes of Reuben and Gad then lived in the “land of the Amorites” (Num. 21:21-31; Deu. 2:24, 36; 3:8, 16; Jos. 13:16). However, a remnant of Moabites apparently lived in the plains of Moab, opposite Jericho, but they were conquered with Sihon. The Moabites were also cursed, because they did not welcome the Israelites, hired the false prophet Balaam to curse Israel, and enticed the Israelites to sin with Baal-Peor, and were thus forbidden to enter the congregation of Israel (Num. 22:1-24:25; Deu. 23:3-5; Neh. 13:1). The land of Moab was a place of continual warfare after the Exodus, with the land changing hands repeatedly—returning to the Moabites (Jud. 3:12), then back to the Israelites (Jud. 3:30), then to the Ammonites (Jud. 11:13, 32-33), back again to the Israelites, and then back to the Moabites under King Mesha (Jud. 11:32-33). 
The Moabite king, Eglon, ruled over Israel during the time of the Judges (c. 1200-1020 B.C.) and cruelly oppressed the people. Israel was then an idolatrous and lawless place where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Jud. 21:25; 17:6). This brought cycles of judgment upon the nation, repentance by the people, and deliverance by God. After eighteen years of subjugation by Eglon, God raised up an Israelite deliverer, Ehud, a Benjamite, who killed Eglon, led a rebellion against Moab and ushered in an eighty-year period of peace between the nations (Jud. 3:12-30). It was probably during this lull in animosity between Israel and Moab that the story of Ruth occurs.
Moabites were idolatrous people and worshiped a pantheon of gods. However, six gods were the most important to them: Chemosh, the national god of Moab who controlled war and fertility; Ashtar-Chemosh, possibly a variant of Chemosh, fusing fertility, sexuality and martial power; Baal-Peor, the local fertility god; Dagon, the god of grain; and Qaus, or Qos, an Edomite god later incorporated into their religion, who demanded human sacrifice. The Bible refers to Chemosh as “the abomination of Moab” (1 Ki. 11:7). So central was Chemosh to their lives that Moabites were called “the people of Chemosh” (Num. 21:29; Jer. 48:7, 13, 46). Chemosh, which may mean “destroyer” or “subduer” was looked upon by Moabites as a sovereign being who was able to give them victory over their enemies, to protect of the king, and to oversee fertility. Sexual immorality and ritual prostitution were part of his worship. And human sacrifices, especially of royal heirs, had to be offered to Chemosh to appease his displeasure and to secure his favor or intervention in times of crisis (2 Ki. 3:27).
The Moabites were largely agrarian. Their diet was similar to the Israelites’ in being heavy in grain (wheat, barley, millet and emmer), legumes (lentils, peas and beans), and fruits and vegetables. Meat and dairy also had a small part in their diet. They consumed simple meals twice a day, a light late-morning meal (bread dipped in vinegar, roasted grain) and a heavier evening meal (soups, stews, and porridges). 
The Moabites had their own distinct culture, customs and language, though their language was Canaanite of Northwest Semitic origins and closely related to Hebrew, Ammonite and Edomite. Moabites wrote using a version of the Phoenician alphabet, very similar to early Hebrew.

She was a young woman:
“Whose young woman is this?” (Rut. 2:5); “She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of the Moabites” (Rut. 2:6); “through the offspring which the Lord will give you by this young woman” (Rut. 4:12).
Ruth, ““friend,” “companion,” or “vision of beauty,” is described as being young, naarah, “a girl, young female, maiden.” She may have been a teenager because the word can also mean child or youth; there is no Hebrew word for “adult,” but a woman is ishah, and a young adult who was twenty years old is bachur (Num. 1:3, 22).

WHAT DID SHE LOOK LIKE?
According to Google AI, Moabites dressed in a manner similar to other people in the Near East: both sexes often wore sleeved, full-bodied linen tunics next to their skin with shawls, wool cloaks, or outer robes layered over them. Women sometimes wore sleeveless outer dresses or tunics that were decorated and with a V-neck front, with kerchiefs on their heads. Men might wear short linen pants under their tunics with turbans on their heads. Fringes were a common embellishment for shawls, robes and tunics. Both sexes wore leather sandals and belts of various kinds. In appearance Ruth would probably have looked like Canaanites and Israelites because she shared common ancestry with them. Depictions of regional women, possibly Moabite, in Egyptian inscriptions show women with long, arranged hair, like Canaanite women. She would likely have been olive to medium-brown skinned with dark hair and eyes. In stature average Moabites were not tall, with males being just over five feet tall and females slightly shorter. However, there is evidence to suggest that certain individuals (like some leaders and warriors) were much taller. Scripture does not describe Ruth’s physical appearance, but she was attractive by her good character, love, intelligence, strength and work ethic.

She was a widow:
“Now it came about in the days when the judges governed, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the land of Moab with his wife and his sons. The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi; and the names of his sons were Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah. Now they entered the land of Moab and remained there. Then Elimelech, Nomi’s husband died; and she was left with her two sons. They took for themselves Moabite women as wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. And they lived there about ten years. Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died, and the woman was bereft of her two children and her husband” (Rut. 1: 1-4).
There had been a famine, “famine, hunger,” in the land, “earth, land,” of Bethlehem, Israel, which drove the small family of Elimelech to sojourn, “abide,” literally “a walking man traveling through a foreign land”; i.e., to temporarily relocate to neighboring Moab. Israel was no stranger to famines: there had been a famine in Canaan when Abraham entered the Promised land (Gen. 12), when Isaac had to go to sojourn in Gerar (Gen. 26) and when Jacob and his family had to move to Egypt in the second year of a seven-year famine (Gen. 46).) 
Elimelech, “My God is King,” was a landowner, and probably a farmer, from the region of Ephrathah (Rut. 4:3). His wife’s name was Naomi, “pleasant,” and his sons were Mahlon, “sick,” and Chilion, “pining.”

HOW DID THEY PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY?
Scripture does not say how they were able to sustain themselves while living in Moab. In two of His parables our Lord Jesus mentions two ways for men to survive if they were not landowners: if they were poor, they could hire themselves out to labor in the fields of wealthy individuals (cf. Luk 15:15; Mat. 20:1-16); or, if they had some money for seed, they could lease a field to farm, as it was a common practice for landowners to lease land to tenant farmers to receive a portion of the harvest (1/10th to 1/5th) as payment for the use of the land. Elimelech may have been a prominent landowner in Bethlehem, so, perhaps, he and his sons tenant-farmed in the years they spent in Moab, rather than buy foreign land. Or possibly they had enough money to live on for a brief time. But however they lived in Moab, the sons were prosperous enough to marry after Elimelech died (1: 3-4).
Ruth married Mahlon. 
Apparently, there was no prohibition in the Moabite laws about marrying foreigners. However, in The Mosaic Law, in Deuteronomy, 7:3-4, the returning Israelites were forbidden to marry Canaanites or Ammonites (and Moab had been Ammonite), and the curse of Deuteronomy, 23:3-5, restricted Moabites from “joining the assembly,” i.e., holding public office and honors, intermarrying with Jews, and worshiping God in the congregation, until the 10th generation. Perhaps the prohibition only pertained to Moabite men, as some hold, but the episode of Baal-Peor (Num. 25), where Moabite women enticed Israelite men to come to their immoral pagan worship services “to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab” (Num. 25:1-2), seems to indicate that Moabite women could be corrupting spiritual influences that needed to be shunned. And Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-27 and Ezra 9:1-2, 12, 10:2-3, forbids Israelite men from remaining married to their pagan wives, including Moabite women. Mahlon’s marriage may therefore have been sinful and may signify his decision to settle down in Moab and forsake Israelite society.
“They [Mahlon and his brother Chilion] took, “to lift, carry, take,” for themselves Moabite women as wives” (Rut. 1:4).
HOW OLD WOULD RUTH AND ORPAH HAVE BEEN?
Because there are few secular records of the Moabites and no Biblical information, we do not really know when young women married in Moab. In the general customs of the ancient Near East women were expected to be married shortly after puberty, which was normally between the ages of twelve to fifteen. But young women had to be physically mature enough to bear children to be married. And their marriages were usually arranged affairs with the families of the prospective bride and groom transacting a marriage contract for their children, although girls twelve years and one day old may have had the right of consent or refusal.

HOW OLD WOULD MAHLON AND CHILION HAVE BEEN?

Scripture does not say anything about this; however, the usual age for young men to marry was eighteen but could have been as young as thirteen or as old as the late twenties (although health issues could affect the timeline). When a young man wanted to marry or when his parents deemed it the right time, the normal custom was for the man’s parents to arrange his marriage; but an Israelite man could marry for love even against his parent’s consent or wishes (cf. Jud. 17:3).
Ruth was widowed.
 At a young age she was a widow, ishshah, “woman, wife, female, widow”; this word is only used eight times in the Old Testament for widow (Rut. 4:10). Her husband was deceased, “to die,” and she was childless (Rut. 4:5, 10). How or when he died is not stated in Scripture, but his death must have been devastating for Ruth, both emotionally and financially. 
As The Victor Handbook of Bible Knowledge explained,
In ancient times, women depended much on their husbands. If a husband died, all of his property and belongings went to the man who owned the family birthright. The widow was left with absolutely nothing. If no one was willing to help her, the widow spent the rest of her life in extreme poverty. With no one to depend on, she was often taken advantage of. Israelite law recognized the plight of widows and made specific laws to help them. If the widow had sons, it was their responsibility to care for her… If a widow had no sons, she could return to her parents.
Not only was Ruth a widow but her mother-in-law, Naomi, “pleasant,” and her sister-in-law, Orpah, “stubborn” or “back of the neck,” or “fawn,” were also widows, three women bereft, “to remain, be left over,” with no men to protect and provide for them (Rut. 1:4). If Naomi’s sons had followed Israelite customs when they married, they would have brought their brides back to their father’s house (in this case Naomi’s house) after the wedding, so the three women were probably living together. But whether they all lived together or not, it is clear that Ruth and Orpah were deeply attached to Naomi.

COULD THEY HAVE PROVIDED FOR THEMSELVES?
Mosaic Law gave widows the right to glean, “to pick” or “gather up,” in agricultural fields and vineyards (Lev. 19:9-10): “Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I AM the LORD your God.” If Moab followed the Mosaic Law it would have allowed gleaning at that time, but there is no historical evidence of this.
There is also a remote possibility, perhaps hinted at in Ruth, chapter one and verse six, “She [Naomi] had heard in the land, “fields, land,” of Moab that the LORD had visited His people in giving them food.” Naomi was in the fields (this word is translated as “field” in Ruth 2:2, 3, 8, 9, 17, 22) after her husband and sons died. If Elimelech and his sons had been tenant-farming, then perhaps Naomi and her daughters-in-law were all in the fields trying to bring in the last crop planted by her sons. Or perhaps she had hired herself out to work for one of the local farmers, harvesting his crops (cf. Ruth 2:8). We can only speculate about this.
 
WHAT DID SHE DO?
She Loved Naomi (Rut. 1-3).
A. She Committed Her Life to Naomi.
	1. Naomi prepared to return to Bethlehem (Rut.1:6-13). 
	WHY?
	“Because she had heard in the land of Moab that the LORD had visited, “to attend to, visit, carefully watch 	over,” His people by giving, “to give, put, deliver,” them food, “bread.” 	God had sovereignly and graciously 	given the people of Israel a bountiful harvest at the very time that Naomi was in need. This event ended 	at least ten years of drought and famine in the land.
	Matthew Henry commented on this event,
	God graciously visited his people in giving them bread. Plenty is God’s gift, and it is His visitation which by bread, 	the staff of life, holds our souls in life. Though His mercy be more striking when it comes after famine, yet if we have 	constantly enjoyed it, and never knew what famine meant, we are not to think it less valuable.”
	Naomi and her family had never intended to permanently dwell in Moab, but rather, to sojourn there 	until their own land could provide for them once more (1:1). With neither husband nor sons to keep her in 	a foreign country, and the promise of food, shelter and family in her hometown, she made the decision to 	go back to Bethlehem. 
		“Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the land of Moab.”	
		a. She arose, “to arise, stand up, stand”; i.e., she was ready to leave Moab. She would 				have had to prepare her own supplies for the journey such as food, water, bedding, etc.
		“So she departed from the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her.”
		
		b. She departed, “to go, come out”; she left “from the place, “standing place, place,” where, 			“who, which, that” + sham, “there, thither,” she was”; i.e., she left the place where she had been 			staying and set out. 
		“And they went on the way to return to the land of Judah.”
		c. She went, “to go, come walk,” on the way, “way, road, distance, journey.” As a poor person she 			began walking towards Bethlehem in the company of her two daughters-in-law.

	HOW DID THEY TRAVEL?
	People in Bible times traveled in groups in caravans because traveling alone was dangerous. There were 	robbers, wild animals, and no road signs, so travelers journeying toward a common destination joined 	together for safety. The poor walked or rode on donkeys, while the rich rode on camels. Caravans could be 	very large, with thousands of travelers, but normal caravans were smaller affairs. However, the routes 	were simply dirt roads and traveling on them was a grimy activity, especially in the back of the caravans 	where travelers would be coated in clouds of dust. As the caravans moved down the roads people were 	free to join them or leave them at will. Naomi and her daughters-in-law were those who walked among 	the caravan travelers, perhaps at the back of the line.

	HOW FAR WAS BETHLEHEM?
	Bethlehem was at least sixty to seventy-five miles west of Moab. To travel from Moab to Bethlehem, 	Naomi and her daughters-in-law would have had to descend 4,500 feet down from the Moab plateau 	(3,000 feet above sea level) to the arid Jordan Valley (between 696-1,300 feet below sea level), cross the 	Jordan River, and then ascend 3,750 feet up to the hills of Judah, a strenuous journey that on foot 	would have taken 7-10 days.

	WHAT WAS BETHLEHEM LIKE?
	Bethlehem, “house of bread,” was a small agrarian walled town in the fertile rolling hills and valleys of 	Judah, about six miles south-west of Jerusalem. It sat at an elevation about 2,300 feet above sea level and 	occupied a very defensible position on a ridge overlooking an important north-south trade route in the 	district of Ephrathah. The fertile fields around the town (Rut. 2:4) yielded marketable crops of wheat, 	barley and olives as well as providing good grazing for sheep. It was famous as the burial place of Rachel, 	who had died there after giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s twelfth son (Gen. 35:19). It would become 	more renowned as the home of King David and as the birthplace of the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Luk. 2:4-5; 	Mic. 5:2; Mat. 2:6).
	2. Naomi pleaded with her daughters-in-law.
	“‘Go, return 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. May the LORD grant that you may find a place of rest, each one in the house 	of her husband.’ Then she kissed them.”
		a. She released them: go, “to go, come, walk,” and return, “to turn back to a previous state or 			place,” to your mother’s house, “a house, the house or tent where the family spends the night.” 			Thus, she gave them permission to return to their mothers’ houses. Since they had no sons they 			could return to their own mothers’ houses and be betrothed to other men. This release was 			selfless act by Naomi, who would have suffered in their absence, but thought only of their 			welfare and not her own.
		She released them because, “In an honor-shame culture, leaving without permission could be 			interpreted as a sign of disrespect or a violation of social standing, bringing shame upon the 			individual” (cf. Gen. 24:56; 30:26; Exo. 4:18).

		b. She blessed them: “May Yahweh deal kindly with you,” and “May you find rest with another 			husband.” 
		As Matthew Henry commented,
		It is very proper for friends, when they part, to part with prayer. She sends them home with her blessing; 			and the blessing of a mother-in-law is not to be slighted. In this blessing she twice mentions the name of 			Jehovah, Israel’s God, and the only true God, that she might direct her daughters to look to Him as the only 			fountain of all good. To Him she prays in general that He would recompense to them the kindness that they 			had shown to her and hers.

		c. She kissed, “to kiss, to touch in love with the lips,” them. “Naomi kissed her daughters-	in-law, 			Orpah and Ruth, as a heartfelt, affectionate, and respectful farewell when urging them to return 			to Moab for a better life.”

		WHAT WAS THEIR REACTION TO THIS?
		“They raised their voices and wept, “to bewail, weep from mourning,” i.e., they wailed in grief. 			“However, they said to her, ‘No, but we will return with you to your people, “people,” or “a large 			mass of people in one location” (Rut. 1:9). These young women had lost their husbands, their 			homelife and now faced losing their mother-in-law, so their grief is understandable. However, 			Naomi also must have been a remarkable woman to have inspired such devotion. 
		d. She urged them:

		“Return, my daughters. Why should you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb, that they may 			be your husbands? Return, my daughters! Go, for I am too old to have a husband.” 				“No, my daughters; for It is harder for me than for you, for the hand of the LORD has gone forth 			against me. [The NIV translation is more accurate: “No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me 			than for you, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me!’] (Rut. 1: 10-14).
		Notice how Naomi urged them to weigh the cost of staying with her: Why, “what? how? why?” 			She said, “Why are you doing this?” She wanted them to consider their actions and not just 			operate on their emotions. She said, Return, my daughters, “to turn back,” because returning to 			Moab offered them the future that she could not. She said, Go, “to go, walk,” because she could 			not offer them husbands now or in the future since she was too old, “to be or become old,” or 			“bearded.” She reminded them that, The LORD’s hand, “hand moves,” has turned, “to go or 			come out,” against, “towards,” me	. Then she added, “It is harder, “muchness, force”+ “to be 			bitter,” for me than for you. 
		The New Bible Commentary wrote,
		Naomi saw the famine, the consequent migration to Moab and the death, first of her husband and then of 			her sons, as signs of divine displeasure with her personally. That is why it was so bitter an experience. If she 			had thought blind fate ordered her life, she would have accepted her situation with passive resignation. As 			it was, by accusing God she declared her faith that he was ultimately the one who overruled events and 			since he was also the God who intended to bless, Naomi found hope even in the depths of despair.

		WHAT WAS THEIR REACTION TO THIS?
		“They lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung 			to her” (vs. 14). 
		Orpah considered the cost of loyal love to Naomi—continued widowhood and childlessness, a 			lifetime of poverty, the loss of her Moabite family, the adoption of the Israelite way of life, 			including its religion and God, and the abandonment of her gods—and she kissed Naomi a final 			goodbye and went back to Moab. Orpah kissed, “to kiss, do homage, touch” her mother-in-			law. A notation in the Jewish Encyclopedia described what that may have looked like: “Women 			family members who were leaving were often given a kiss on the cheek or neck, and this was 			often accompanied by tears and an embrace.
		Orpah did not have the kind of steadfast love that would love while expecting nothing in return; 			she did not possess the hesed of Naomi and Ruth because she was not a God-fearing woman, as 			her departure demonstrated: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they 			had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out so that it would be shown 			that they all are not of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). 
		Ruth clung, “to join or stick to someone or something,” to her, i.e., she embraced Naomi and 			would not let her go. R. C. Sproul defined the word clung: “The Hebrew for clung in Ruth 1:14 is 			the same word used to describe the marriage relationship. In other words, Ruth clung to her 			mother-in-law in covenant fidelity…” And he also wrote, “Perhaps she has heard of the great 			promises to Abraham’s children or has seen God working in these imperfect refugees from Israel. 		Regardless of the initial motivating factor, Ruth is clearly a woman of faith despite her being a 			Gentile.”
		John Piper noted,
		Verse 14 says that Orpah kissed Naomi goodbye but Ruth clung to her. Not even another entreaty in verse 			15 can get Ruth to leave. This is all the more amazing after Naomi’s grim description of their future with her. 		Ruth stays with her in spite of an apparently hopeless future of widowhood and childlessness. Naomi 			painted the future black and Ruth took her hand and walked into it with her.

		d. She urged Ruth: “Return after your sister-in-law.” 
		John MacArthur wrote of this conversation,
		Naomi no doubt felt it was not in Ruth’s best interests to be shackled to an aged and destitute widow. On the 		other hand, she must have known that it would be spiritually detrimental for Ruth to go back to her people 			“and to her gods.” In all likelihood, Naomi was testing Ruth, hoping to coax from her an explicit verbal 			confession of faith in Yahweh. It would be wrong to take Ruth to Israel and place a widow without financial 			support in that society if she 	had no genuine commitment to Israel’s God.
	3. Ruth pledged her allegiance.
	“But Ruth said, ‘Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, 	and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my GOD. Where you die, I 	will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you 	and me.’ When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her” (Rut. 1:15-18).
	Matthew Henry wrote, 
	She [Ruth] is very particular in her resolution to cleave to her and never to forsake her; and she speaks the language 	of one resolved for God and heaven. She is so in love, not with her mother’s beauty, or riches or gaiety (all these were 	withered and gone), but with her wisdom, and virtue, and grace, which remained with her, even in her present poor 	and melancholy condition, that she resolves to cleave to her.
		a. Ruth asked Naomi to not urge me, “to meet, encounter, reach, entreat, urge,” (used as 			urge only in this instance), to leave, “to go away from or neglect, forsake,” or to turn back, 			“to return, a turning back to a previous state or place”; an alternate rendering reads, “Be not 			against me.”	
		b. Ruth assured Naomi of her loyalty: Where, “to, into, towards” + “who, which, that” you go, “to 		go, come, walk,” I will go; and Where you lodge, “to remain, pass the night, abide,” I will lodge; 			i.e., she would be with her in any journey and always be with her at the place where she slept no 			matter how poor it might be.										c. Ruth affirmed her affections: 											1) Your people shall be my people (the Hebrew does not contain the words shall be, so it 			reads “Your people, my people”). Ruth identified herself with Naomi and wanted to 				remain with Naomi and become part of her “people.”

			WHO WERE NAOMI’S PEOPLE?
			The Israelites were descendants of Abraham through his grandson Israel, or Jacob (Lev. 				23:42-43), and they were under of the Covenant of blessings given to Abraham and his 				descendants—for descendants, a land, a nation, and divine blessing and protection 				(Gen. 12:1-3; Rom. 9:4; 11:1). Israelites were monotheistic, worshiping and serving only 				one God, Yahweh. God had said, I am Yahweh your God. You shall have no other Gods 				before Me” (Exo. 20), and “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, souls 				and mind” (Deu. 6:5). They were also told to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 				19:18), and to “Be holy for I, your God Am holy” (Lev. 19:2). Israelites were to be a holy 				people, a people for God’s own possession (Deu. 7:6). To that end God had given them 				“rituals, a worship place, and priestly personnel of sacrificial worship… teaching the 				need for confession, atonement, forgiveness, dedication and fellowship with God.”  				Israelites had a love relationship with their God unlike anything in pagan religions: they 				were God’s people and He was their God.

			2) Your God, my God. “This testimony evidenced Ruth’s conversion from worshiping 				Chemosh to Yahweh of Israel.” Ruth was a believer in the true God. How and when she 			became converted is not stated in Scripture, but here Ruth was confessing her faith to 				Naomi. 
			C. H. Spurgeon had this thought:
			The most amazing commitment of all is this: “Your God will be my God” (vs. 16). Naomi has just 				said in verse 13, “The hand of the Lord has gone forth against me.” Naomi’s experience of God 				was bitterness. But in spite of this, Ruth forsakes her religious heritage and makes the God of 				Israel her God. Perhaps she had made that commitment years before, when her husband told her 				of the great love of God for Israel and his power at the Red Sea and his glorious purpose of peace 				and righteousness. Somehow or other Ruth had come to trust in Naomi’s God in spite of Naomi’s 				bitter experiences.
			Herbert Lockyer mused:
	            	       Just when she [Ruth] cast off her idolatry with its folly of bowing down to gods of wood and stone, 		        and turned to the beauty and blessedness of true religion we are not told. Perhaps in her some-			        what short married life, her heart was stirred by what her husband told her of the greatness of 			        Jehovah. Then she must have seen that Naomi’s God was totally different from the lifeless deity 		        she worshipped. This much is evident, that her outburst of song of life devotion on 	the road from 		        Moab to Bethlehem was the birth-strain of a new life.

		HOW DOES SOMEONE COME TO GOD?
		The Scriptures teach that, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 			10:17), and “The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and 			piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the 			thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). Ruth must have heard the word of God from 			Naomi and others and by God’s grace realized her sinfulness and need of a Savior, came to 			believe in Him and committed herself to Him (Eph. 1:13; Rom 10:9). 
		As Pastor Tom Pennington said, “God receives the guilty who believe in Yahweh as their God, 			trust solely in His grace, repent of their sins, and seek His forgiveness…”
		John MacArthur explained saving faith this way:
		True saving faith is supernatural, a gracious gift of God that He produces in the heart and is the only means 			by which a person can appropriate true righteousness (cf. Romans 3:22, 25; 4:5, 13, 20; 5:1). Saving faith 			consists of three elements: 1) mental: the mind understands the gospel and the truth about Christ (Romans 			10:14-17); 2) emotional: one embraces the truthfulness of those facts with sorrow over sin and joy over 			God’s mercy and grace (Romans 6:17; 15:13); and 3) volitional: the sinner submits his will to Christ and 			trusts him alone as the only hope of salvation.”
	c. Ruth attested to her lifelong fidelity, “Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.”
		One commentator wrote, 

		Not content with half-measures, however, Ruth extended her devotion even beyond Naomi’s death (where 			you die, I 	will die). There would be no temporary companionship followed by a return to the old life. On the 			contrary, v. 16 stated a lifelong decision: she intended to live out her remaining years in her adopted 			homeland… Ruth promised burial wherever Naomi died (and there [emphatic sam] I will be buried). Though 			slightly ambiguous, the reference is probably to burial in Naomi’s family plot, not simply in the same town. 			If so, it reflects the widespread ancient tradition whereby families remained united even after death.
		And to emphasize her earnestness she swore with an oath in Yahweh’s name: “Ruth voluntarily 			took on 	dire, unspecified consequences if the condition next stipulated happened… the 				condition was if even death [Hebrew emphatic] itself separates me from you.” 

	WHAT WAS NAOMI’S REACTION TO THIS?
	When she saw that she was determined, “to be stout, strong, bold; a mental strength of courage or 	determination” to go with her, she said, “to speak,” no more to her” (Rut. 1:15-18). There was nothing 	more for Naomi to say because Ruth had testified of her faith and of her commitment. As John 	MacArthur remarked, “Their souls and their destinies were bound together by their friendship and their 	common faith.” 
B. She Committed Her Labor for Naomi.

“So they both went on until they came to Bethlehem… So Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest” (Rut. 1:19-22).

	1. Ruth accompanied Naomi to Bethlehem at barley harvest.

	WHEN WAS THE BARLEY HARVEST?
	One commentator explained,
	When they arrived in Bethlehem it was the beginning of the barley harvest. This occurs in the spring, in the first month 	of the Hebrew agricultural year (March/April on the Gregorian calendar). The barley harvest can only occur after the 	firstfruits of the barley have been offered to Adoni [Yahweh]. Firstfruits of the barley harvest happens during the week 	of Unleavened Bread (think Passover time.) After the firstfruits have been offered then the counting of weeks toward 	the wheat harvest (Shavuot/Pentecost) occurs. This is called the Feast of Weeks or the counting of the omer. As the 	harvest of barley begins, each week for 7 weeks an omer, or sheaf, of barley is set aside for an offering which is to be 	presented to Adoni on Shavout (Pentecost), along with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest.
	Matthew Henry commented,
	God, at last, returned in mercy to His people; for, though He contend long, He will not contend always. As the judgment 	of oppression, under which they often groaned in the time of the judges, still came to an end, after a while, when God 	raised them up a deliverer, so here the judgment of famine: At length God graciously visited His people in giving them 	bread. Plenty is God’s gift, and it is His visitation which by bread, the staff of life, holds our souls in life. Though this 	mercy be more striking when it comes after a famine, yet if we have constantly enjoyed it, and never knew what famine 	meant, we are not to think it less valuable.
	“All the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, ‘Is this Naomi?’ She said to them, ‘Do not call 	me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, but the LORD has 	brought me back empty’” (Rut. 1:19-21).
		a. Naomi came to Bethlehem as Mara, “bitter”; perhaps she had changed in appearance, aging 			from her sorrows; she had certainly changed in fortune, coming back empty.
		She said, “The hand of the LORD has gone forth against me. 								The Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.								The Lord has brought me back empty.									The Lord has testified against me and afflicted me” (Rut. 1: 20-21).

		DID NAOMI THINK THAT GOD WAS PUNISHING HER FOR LEAVING BETHLEHEM? 	
		Abraham had left Canaan to sojourn in Egypt during a famine and God had not rebuked him (Gen. 		12:10), and Jacob and his family were directed by God to go down to Egypt during a seven-year 			famine (Gen. 46:1-4), so she knew it was not sinful in itself to leave an area of famine. However, it 		seems that a lack of faith lay behind the fact that she and her family had chosen to live in a pagan 		country with false gods and had not obeyed God’s command to be separate from the surrounding 		peoples. Perhaps she had doubted that God would sustain her weak and sickly sons in a famine, 			so she took had urged her husband to seek better conditions in neighboring Moab. Or perhaps 			her husband had insisted on sojourning in Moab against Naomi’s wishes. In any event it seems 			that she interpreted her reduced circumstances as evidence of God’s chastening hand. 
		WAS NAOMI REALLY BITTER? 
		John MacArthur argued in his book, Twelve Extraordinary Women, 
		This was not a complaint as much as a heartfelt lament. She knew, as Job did, that it is the Lord who gives and 		takes away. She understood the principle of God’s sovereignty. In calling herself “Mara” she was not suggesting 		that she had become a bitter person; but (as her words reveal) that Providence had handed her a bitter cup 			to drink. She saw the hand of God in her sufferings, but far from complaining, I think she was simply 			acknowledging her faith in the sovereignty of God, even in the midst of bitter grief. Everything Scripture tells 		us about Naomi indicates that she remained steadfast in faith during her trials. She was not unlike Job—she 			was a woman of great faith who withstood almost unimaginable testing without ever once wavering in her 			love for YHWH and her commitment to His will. So hers is actually an impressive expression of faith, without 			an ounce of resentment in it.
		Job had said, “The LORD gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD” 			(Job 1:21); Eli the high priest said, “He is the LORD; let Him do what is good in His eyes” (1 Sa. 			3:18). God had a plan for Naomi, a plan for good, though she could not understand it at the time. 	
		The book of proverbs reminds us, “Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD, how then can a man 			understand his way?” (Pro. 20:24), and “The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD 				directs his steps,” (Pro. 16:9). 
	 	b. She came back empty, “emptily, vainly.” She said, “the Lord has brought me back empty.”  			While she had lost her husband and her sons, she still had Ruth; Naomi had completely forgotten 			that Ruth was with her, a God-provided helper. 
		Charles Spurgeon remarked, 
		Naomi needs to open her eyes to Ruth. What a gift! What a blessing! Yet as she and Ruth stand before the 			people of Bethlehem, Naomi says in verse 21, “The LORD has brought me back empty.” Not so, Naomi! You 			are so weary with the night of adversity that you can’t see the dawn of rejoicing. What would she say if she 			could see that in Ruth she would gain a man-child, and that this man-child would be the grandfather of the 			greatest king of Israel, and that this king of Israel would foreshadow the King of kings, Jesus Christ, the Lord 			of the universe? I think she would say, “Judge not the Lord by feeble sense, but trust Him for his grace; 			behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face.”

	2. Ruth assumed responsibility for sustaining Naomi by gleaning.
	WHAT WAS THE PROCESS OF GLEANING?
	The dictionary defines “gleaning” as, “to gather grain left behind by reapers” or “to collect bit by bit.” 	The Mosaic Law mandated that the corners of fields not be harvested, but rather, to be left for the poor to 	gather up. Likewise, any fallen grain was not to be picked up by the harvesters but to be left for the poor, 	the orphans, the widows, and strangers to pick up (Lev. 19: 9-10). Gleaners would follow behind the 	reapers gathering the grain stalks that had been left behind; then these would be beaten or threshed to 	separate the edible grain from the chaff and then the grain collected. Under normal circumstances 	gleaning took a lot of effort but did not produce very much grain to eat.

	“And Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, ‘Please let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain 	following one in whose eyes I may find favor.’ And she said to her, ‘Go, my daughter.’ So she left and went 	and gleaned in the field after the reapers; and she happened to come to the portion of the field 	belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech… The Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of 	the reapers, ‘Whose young woman is this?’ The servant in charge of the reapers replied, ‘She is the young 	Moabite woman who returned with Naomi… And she [Ruth had] said, “Please let me glean and gather 	after the reapers among the sheaves.” Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she 	has been sitting in the house for a little while” (Rut. 2:1-3, 7).
 
		a. Ruth proceeded to glean for food for them both. Naomi was older and undoubtedly exhausted 			physically and emotionally from the trip and her homecoming, so Ruth sacrificially offered to go 			gleaning alone, even though she was a young woman, a stranger and a foreigner. She hoped to 			find favor, “favor, grace,” somewhere. She was trusting in the LORD’s providence for their 			livelihood.
															b. Ruth providently happened, “to encounter, meet, befall,” + “accident, chance, fortune,” to 			come to Boaz’s field. In reality, in God’s sovereign plan He divinely directed her to the one field 			owned by Boaz, a close relative.

		Herbert Lockyer wrote, 
		Under Jewish law Ruth had the right to glean in any harvest field. It was no mere chance, then, that brought 			Boaz and 	Ruth together, for even the steps of God’s children are directed by Him. In His plan for His own 			there is no such thing as luck. Determined not to eat the bread of idleness, industrious Ruth walked right 			into the arms of divine providence. Little did she dream that she would become the much-loved wife of the 			master of the field in which the reapers had given her a friendly welcome (Ruth 2:12; Psalms 17:8, 36:7).

	3. Ruth acquired a good reputation.
		a. Ruth presented a winsome figure.
			1) She was not a stranger, but a worthy companion of Naomi.
			2) She was modest and respectful, and asked permission to glean after the harvesters.
			3) She was a hard worker, gleaning diligently from morning onward, stopping only to rest 			once.													4) She was called “a woman of excellence by the townspeople (Rut. 3:11).								
		b. Ruth pleased Boaz.

		WHO WAS BOAZ?
		Boaz, whose name means “in strength,” or “by strength,” was an Israelite, a Jew, of the tribe of 			Judah. He was the son of Salmon (Salma) and Rahab, the redeemed former Canaanite prostitute 			of Jericho who had sheltered the Israelite spies (Jos. 2:4; Mat. 1:5); this may help to explain why 			he was so unusually welcoming of a foreign convert. He is described as a man of great, “strong, 			mighty,” wealth, “strength, efficiency, wealth,” or “man of valor,” in Bethlehem (Rut. 2:1). In 			stature, he possibly stood between five feet five inches and five feet eight inches. He probably 			followed the coloration of other Semitic people, with dark hair and eyes, and olive skin. He was a 			close relative of Elimelech, Naomi’s deceased husband, possibly a brother or cousin. He was not 		a young man since he contrasted himself with the young men, bachur, “choice young men,” and 			called Ruth my daughter, “daughter,” (Rut. 3:10-11). In Jewish midrashic literature there is a 			tradition that Boaz was 80 and Ruth was 40 when they met, but the Bible is silent about their 			ages. However, since Ruth was called a “young woman or maiden” (Rut. 2:5), she was clearly not 			a middle-aged woman, and Boaz was not an elderly man because Naomi, his contemporary, was 			not in her old age (Rut. 4: 15), but rather, only a generation older than Ruth. But whatever his age 		Boaz was vigorous enough to manage his barley winnowing (Rut. 3:2) and virile enough to later 			father a 	child with Ruth (Rut. 4:13). He appears to have been single and childless, possibly a 			widower. By his greeting to his workers and their reply to him we see that he was a beloved 			employer and a godly man (Rut. 2:4); by his kindness to Ruth we understand that he was a 			compassionate and generous man. And because he made sure that Ruth had ample grain to bring 		to Naomi, we see that he was a man willing to shoulder the responsibility of caring for his 			relatives. 
		One online commentator remarked of Boaz,
		There aren’t many Bible heroes with spotless records. David had his troubles with Bathsheba. Abraham had 			an ongoing issue with telling lies. Samson gave up his secret and his strength to Delilah. It’s important to 			note, all these men finished well and are part of the great cloud of witnesses that cheer us on as we run our 			faith race. But Boaz, though imperfect like all the rest of us, is one of the few scripture records as a 			consistently righteous man.
		“Then Boaz said to Ruth, ‘Listen carefully, my daughter. Do not go to glean in another field; 			furthermore, do not go on from this one, but stay here with my maids. Let your eyes be on the 			field which they reap, and go after them. Indeed, I have commanded the servants not to touch 			you. When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants draw’” (Rut. 2:8-			9).

			1) Boaz was curious about her: he had asked his overseer, “Whose young woman is 				this?” He had earlier investigated her because others had reported, “to be conspicuous, 				or declare” about her to him (Rut. 2:11). Whereas he had only heard about her, now he 				could see her in person.
			2) Boaz had a conversation with her. This was a gracious act of condescension on the 				part of Boaz, not only because of their social differences but because she was a woman, 				a foreigner, and a Moabite. 										3) Boaz counseled Ruth to only glean in his field and stay with his harvesters, and to 				drink from their water jars when she was thirsty, an act of kindness and concern that 				went well beyond the requirements of the Law. 

			WHAT WAS HER REACTION TO HIM?
			She was humbled and grateful. She said, I have found favor, “grace,” in your sight, my 				lord, for you have comforted, “to give comfort in time of difficulty or sorrow,” me and 				indeed have spoken, “to speak,” kindly, “from heart” to your maidservant, “young girl, 				maiden,” though I am not like, “like,” one of 	your maidservants, “young girls” (Rut. 2:13). 			This kindness was exactly what she 	had hoped and prayed for.
			4) Boaz had commanded his workers “not to touch,” naga, “to touch, reach, strike,” her. 				This protection was not always extended to those who gleaned, as Naomi would				acknowledge: “It is good my daughter that you go out with his maids so that others do 				not fall upon, ‘to encounter’ you in another field” (Rut. 2:22). 
			5) Boaz commended her for caring for Naomi and prayed that the LORD, would reward 				her work and bestow full wages upon her. He acknowledged that she had come to seek 				refuge, “to place one’s trust in” the LORD, in the same way that helpless chicks 	find 				safety under their mother’s wings.										6) Boaz called her to share his midday meal of bread and vinegar. This was significant. 
			In The People of Ancient Israel author Dorothy Mills commented,
			“To the ancient Hebrew the eating of a meal with another was a symbolic act, to which 				he attached great importance. It meant to him that those who had joined a common meal 			had established a relationship of friendliness and good-will each to the other,” i.e., Boaz 			extended a friendly gesture of hospitality to her.
			7) Boaz charged his workers with letting her glean among the sheaves and leaving grain 				for her to pick up; thus, by the end of the day she had five times as much grain (30-40 				lbs.) as normal gleaning would afford. This last kindness testified of his high regard for 				her and his own generosity, or hesed.

			WHY DID BOAZ DO THIS?
			The New Bible Commentary commented,
			The answer was that her reputation had gone ahead of her. The people of Bethlehem recognized 				goodness in action and approved of Ruth’s courage in accompanying Naomi. With May the LORD 				repay you: Boaz was expressing more than a pious wish. Aware of Ruth’s self–sacrifice Boaz 				wanted her to be richly rewarded so that her faith would be strengthened by seeing all her needs 				met. Such was the promise to those who took God at his word (Dt. 5:10). God’s people loved to 				liken God’s protecting care to that of a bird spreading its wings over its chicks (cf. Pss. 17:8; 				36:7).
		c. Naomi perceived God’s kindness to them through Boaz.
		“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.’ Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, ‘May he be blessed of the 			LORD, who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead!’” (Rut. 2:19-20).

			1) Naomi called a blessing upon Boaz for his notice, “to regard, recognize, know, 				acknowledge,” of Ruth.
			2) Naomi celebrated the fact that the LORD had not withdrawn, “to leave, forsake; 				to go away from or to neglect,” his kindness, (hesed), “goodness, kindness,” to she and 				Ruth. Her faith in God’s kind providence was renewed.
			The New Bible Commentary noted,
			There is more to the word kindness than the reader might suspect. It translates the Hebrew word 				ḥeseḏ, here and in 2:20 and 3:10. Supremely it is the characteristic of God himself in his dealings 				with those who are his people. Sometimes (e.g. Ex. 15:13) it is translated “unfailing love’”and the 				word conveys the Lord’s faithfulness to his covenant promises (Dt. 7:9). People who have 				experienced the Lord’s ḥeseḏ are intended to reflect the same loving care in their relationships 				with others. Ruth the Moabitess is said to have done so (3:10), because of her selfless loyalty to 				Naomi and because, by declaring Naomi’s God to be her God, she entered into the sphere of his 				blessing. By the same route, other non–Israelites were able to know for themselves the Lord’s 				ḥeseḏ, for he is “rich in love... he has compassion on all he has made” (Ps. 145:8-9). Supremely that 			steadfast 	love was revealed in Christ and is a secure basis for Christians’ trust in the God of Naomi 				and Ruth today.
			3) Naomi clarified Boaz’s relationship to them: he was one of their closest relatives, 				(goel), “to redeem, act as kinsman; the buying back, a bringing back around, of someone 			or something”; i.e., a kinsman-redeemer? 

			WHAT WAS A KINSMAN-REDEEMER?
			Ronald Youngman defined it this way:
			In the Old Testament the word “kinsman” is often used as a translation of a Hebrew word that 				means, “one who has the right to redeem.” Since an Israelite could sell himself, his family, or his 				land (Lev. 25:39-43) in cases of poverty, the kinsman-redeemer (Lev. 25:25) was provided to 				protect the clan. This person, a near relative, had the first option by law to buy any land being 				sold, thus allowing it to be kept within the clan (Lev. 25:23-28; Jer. 32:6-10).
			And John MacArthur wrote this in his book Twelve Extraordinary Women,
			The goel was usually a prominent male in one’s extended family. He was the official guardian of 				the family’s honor. If the occasion arose, he would be the one to avenge the blood of a murdered 				relative (Jos. 20:2-9). He could buy back family lands sold in times of hardship (Lev. 25:23-28). He 				could pay the redemption price for family members sold into slavery (Lev. 23:47-49). Or (if he were 			a single man or widower and thus able to marry) he could revive the family lineage when someone 			died without an heir by marrying the widow and fathering offspring who would inherit the name 				and property of the one who had died. This was known as the law of levirate marriage, and 				Deuteronomy 25:5-10 presented it as a duty in cases where one brother (obviously unmarried and 			presumably younger) was living in the household of a married brother who died.

			HOW IS JESUS OUR KINSMAN REDEEMER?
			In Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical Truth, the authors wrote,
			Christ’s atonement is characterized as redemption, that by which man is redeemed from the 				bondage of sin and the law through the payment of Christ’s shed blood as a ransom. 					…Redemption language is fundamentally commercial. The Greek terms agorazo and exagorazo 				come from the noun agora, which means “marketplace” (Matt. 20:3; Luke 7:32; Acts 17:17). Thus, 				to redeem is to purchase out of the marketplace. Lytroo, another Greek word for “redemption,” 				refers to purchasing by payment of a ransom (lytron). For example, when an Israelite had become 				so poor that he had to sell himself into slavery, God’s law made provision for his family to redeem 				(Heb. gaal; Gr. lytroomai [Septuagint] him out of slavery by paying a price (Lev. 25:47-55). In a 				similar way, then, sinners have found themselves in bondage to sin (Rom. 6:6), and Christ has 				redeemed them by the ransom price of His life. He himself declares that he came “to give his life 				as a ransom [Gr. lytron] for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; c.f. 1 Tim. 2:6).
			“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law” (Gal. 3:13-15).
			“Conduct yourselves in fear during your stay on earth, knowing that you were not 				redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited 				from your forefathers, but 	with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished, and spotless, 				the blood of Christ” (1 Pe. 1:18-19). 	
		d. Ruth persevered through the harvest season, approximately two months of hard labor (Rut. 			2:23).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          C.  She Committed Herself to Levirate Marriage for Naomi.
“Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, ‘My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose young maids you were?’” (Rut. 3:1). 
	1. Naomi proposed a plan.
		a. Naomi suggested that Ruth marry: “Shall I not find security for you?”	 
			1) She recognized an opportunity for Ruth to find security, “a resting place, state or 				condition of rest; a place of quiet and rest from burdens, work or enemy.” 					2) She also wanted it to be well, “to be good, well, glad, pleasing; to be good such as in 				being functional,” with Ruth. In other words, she wanted to arrange a marriage for Ruth. 				While this was the custom for parents to do for their marriageable children, Naomi 				surely thought of this as a way to show kindness to Ruth, her daughter-in-law, for her 				steadfast love.
			3) She suggested that Ruth marry Boaz. Naomi could have arranged a marriage with 				any eligible bachelor for Ruth because she was still young, childless, and a had a good 				reputation, but she suggested their kinsman, Boaz, because he could be her husband in 				a levirate marriage.

			WHAT IS A LEVIRATE MARRIAGE?
			The dictionary defines a levirate marriage as:
			 A form of marriage prescribed by the Law of Moses in which a man was required to marry the 				widow of a brother who died with no male heir. The term “levirate” means “husband’s brother.” 				The purpose of the law was to provide a male heir for the dead brother, thereby preserving his 				name and estate. The law was designed to provide for the welfare of widows (Deu. 25:5-10).
			The text of Deuteronomy 25 states, “If brothers are living together and one of them dies 				without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall 				take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she 				bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted 				out from Israel. However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall 				go to the elders at the town gate and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his 				brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.’ Then the 				elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, ‘I do not 				want to marry her,’ his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, 				take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, ‘This is what is done to the man who 				will not build up his brother’s family line.’ That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The 				Family of the Unsandaled” (Deu.25:5-10).

			Only a kins-man redeemer could redeem Mahlon’s property, preserve Naomi and Ruth’s 			inheritance in Israel and provide money for Naomi’s living expenses; only a close relative 			could become a levirate husband and father a child that would be considered Mahlon’s 				heir and perpetuate Elimelech and Mahlon’s line. Boaz was the perfect candidate to be 				their redeemer since he was a “close relative.”

		b. Naomi suggested that Ruth propose to Boaz.

		“’Behold, he is winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. Wash yourself therefore, 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. It shall be when he lies down, 		that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; 			then he will tell you what you shall do” (Rut. 3:2-4). 
		The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary suggested,
		Singular as these directions may appear to us, there was no impropriety in them, according to the simplicity 			of rural manners in Beth-lehem. In ordinary circumstances these would have seemed indecorous to the 			world; but in the case of Ruth, it was a method, doubtless conformable to prevailing usage, of reminding 			Boaz of the duty which devolved on him as the kinsman of her deceased husband. Boaz probably slept upon 		a mat or skin; Ruth lay crosswise at his feet — a position in which Eastern servants frequently sleep in the 			same chamber or tent with their master; and if they want a covering, custom allows them that benefit from 			part of the covering on their master’s bed. Resting, as the Orientals do at night, in the same clothes they 			wear during the day, there was no indelicacy in a stranger, or even a 	woman, putting the extremity of this 			cover over her.
		However, Sinclair Ferguson argued, 
		“It is highly unlikely—although the story has at times been read this way—that this represents an 		ancient and widely recognized custom.”  
		And he said, 
		Naomi is acting in a reckless manner. One [recklessness] is the way in which her counsel here seems 			contrary to her former moral concerns for Ruth. Earlier she said, ‘It will be good for you, my daughter, 			to go with his girls because in someone else’s field you might be harmed’ (2:22). Harmed in the middle of 			the day? Yes—she is concerned for the preservation of her daughter-in-law, and that probably includes her 			sexual purity. But now she seems prepared to risk everything as she encourages her to go down to the 			threshing floor. We may assume that the threshing floor at harvest season was more dangerous morally at 			night-time than the open fields in daytime. Scripture later hints at this (Hosea 9:1). Indeed, we scarcely need 		it to tell us what we can already guess. Secrecy is sometimes a sinister sign: ‘Don’t let him know you are 			there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down…go uncover his feet’ (3:3-4). When you 			see a certain kind of secrecy… you instinctively think, ‘Something’s up!’ …[Boaz] recognizes the danger, the 			compromising situation Naomi has engineered: ‘Let it not be known that a woman came to the threshing 			floor’ (vs. 14).
		Because the text does not say, “This was the custom in former times in Israel” (Rut. 4:7), and 			because Naomi urged Ruth to be as attractive as possible but to act secretly, “secrecy, a 				covering that hides what is behind,” and because Boaz said, “Let it not be known that a woman 			came to the threshing floor” (Rut. 3:14), it seems best to regard this as unusual behavior and 			as potentially damaging to their reputations, and something that Naomi herself formulated to 			induce Boaz to act for them.
	2. Ruth proposed a marriage.
		a. Ruth approached his feet, “place of the feet,” and lay there on the threshing floor. Ruth was 			anointed, “to pour, use ointment” (perfumed), and in her best clothes, “a wrapper, mantle, 			garment” (in her wedding clothes).  She was perfumed and available. 
		b. Ruth asked Boaz to act as her kins-man redeemer: “Spread, “to spread out,” your covering, 			“wing,” over, “upon, above, over,” your maid, “a maid, handmaid,” for you are a close relative, “to 			redeem, act as a kinsman” (Rut. 3:9). (The ESV Bible has a clearer translation, “Spread your wings 			over your servant, for you are a redeemer.”) This figure of “wings of protection” is like the word-			picture that Boaz had used in the fields when he acknowledged that she was a believer; she had 			come to “The God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek 	refuge” (Rut. 2:12).     
		c. Boaz approved of Naomi’s plan.											1) Boaz called Ruth a woman of excellence, “valor,” and affirmed his willingness to be her 			redeemer. He also prayed that Ruth would be blessed, “to kneel, bless,” for her actions. 				He recognized that Ruth’s motivation was Naomi’s welfare, “You have shown your last 				kindness, (hesed) [to Naomi] to be better than the first”; he promised that he would do 				whatever, “the whole” + “that,” she asked, “to say,” i.e., try to arrange their marriage. 				2) Boaz confessed that there was an impediment to their union, a nearer relative, 				but vowed that he would marry her if the other relative did not (vs. 12).

			“Now it is true I am a close, “kins-man redeemer,” relative; however there is a relative, 				“redeemer,” closer, “near,” than I… if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But 				if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives” (Rut. 3:12-				13).
			3) Boaz cautioned Ruth that no one should know that she had visited him in the night. 				(vv. 13, 14). Because of the depravity of the times it would have been easy for the 				townsfolk to misconstrue the purpose of the midnight meeting. And indeed, if Boaz had 				not been such a godly man, and if Ruth had not been such a woman of integrity, there 				could have been a dangerous situation of temptation. But as it was, they were both 				carefully pure. 
			4) Boaz counted six measures (seahs, 60-80 lbs.) of grain from his harvest for Ruth 				and sent her home with it (vs. 17).		
	                  	Some scholars see this gift as proof that Boaz felt obligated to provide for Naomi as a 				goel, but others maintain that it was a symbol of fullness, a portent of offspring. 				Commentator B. Porten, as quoted by Robert L. Hubbard Jr., wrote, “The seed to fill the 				stomach was promise of the seed to full the womb.” And Hubbard himself followed with, 			“Thus the grain assured Naomi that Ruth would soon marry—an answer to her long-				forgotten prayer (1:9)—and that, in turn, would make the birth of an heir possible.”

			HOW COULD BOAZ LEGALLY MARRY RUTH THE MOABITE?
			Deuteronomy, 7:3-4, prohibited Israelites from marrying into any of the idolatrous seven 				nations that inhabited the Promised Land of Canaan (the Hittites, the Girgashites, the 				Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites) because “they 				will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods” (vs. 4). This was a moral 				safeguard for the nation so that they were not led into idolatry. But Rahab the 					Canaanite, who lived in Jericho and hid the Hebrew spies, was spared because of her 				faith and became an accepted part of Israel (Jos. 2: 1-23; 6: 22-25). And as John 					MacArthur pointed out, in his “Study Notes,” even the emasculated or illegitimate, the 				Ammonite and the Moabite, those who were excluded under Deuteronomy 23:1-6, 				could find inclusion by faith: “Individuals from all 3 of these outcast groups are offered 				grace and acceptance by Isaiah upon personal faith in the true God (cf. Isa. 56:1-8).” 				While Isaiah wrote 500 years after Ruth lived, God’s unchanging heart was revealed in 				Isaiah’s words:
			“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to Him, and to love the 				name of 	the LORD, to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath 				and holds fast my covenant, even those I will bring to my holy mountain and make them 				joyful in My house of prayer” (Isa. 56:6-7). 
			Because Ruth had professed faith in the true God and had demonstrated the strength of 				her believing heart by her steadfast love, in a moral sense, Boaz was free to marry her 				since she would be neither a stumbling block to him nor to his people. But Boaz also had 			a legal right to marry Ruth:
			By [Boaz]acquiring the inheritance, Ruth became a legal member of the house of Judah under 				Boaz, even though she was a Moabite. As a legal member of the house of Judah, Boaz then 				performs the levirate duties of a kinsman-redeemer, marries her and conceives with her to give 				seed to Machelon [Mahlon]. The child 	Obed is then a two-fold legal member of the house of 				Judah by his mother being the property of Boaz, and because he himself is the legal child of 				Machelon [Mahlon].”

		“Then she [Naomi] said, ‘Wait, my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out; for 			the man 	will not rest but will settle it today” (Rut. 3:18).
		d. Naomi assured Ruth that the issue of which relative would redeem her would be solved that 			very day (vs. 18). Naomi knew the nature of a man, that given an important task to do he would 			perform it as soon as possible. And while Naomi had contrived her risky plan to engage Boaz as 			their kins-man redeemer, now she actively trusted God to work His will in their lives. 

	3. Boaz proposed a redemption.
		a. Boaz called a legal assembly by calling the elders, “old or aged men,” to the city gate. The 			modern equivalent of this gathering would be a civil court, but in an open-air setting. 				Bethlehem was a small town but gathering the elders may have taken some time. However, once 			they were assembled the closest relative “happened” to pass by. Boaz hailed the closest relative  			and had him sit at the gate to transact a public hearing about Naomi’s land and Ruth’s 				redemption. 

		WHAT WAS THE CITY GATE?
		The city gate was an outward extension of the city’s protective wall, with an opening through 			which traffic entered and exited the city. It had a reinforced door on the outward side and a 			reinforced door on the inward side and an inner open area between these, with side rooms lining 		the open area for defenders and/or storage. The doors could be closed at night or in times of war 			but usually remained open during the day. In the Bronze Age cities usually only had one or two 			gates, and these were usually fortified with defensive towers on the walls on either side of the 			gate. Civic and other business matters and official gatherings took place at the city gate; it was 			the center of city life. Commercial business was conducted inside the walls of the city in the open 			square by the gate or just outside the gate.
			1) The closest relative was called friend, “a certain one” + “to tie, bind” and Elimelech’s 				brother, “a brother,” also, “relative”; he “would almost certainly have either been an 				older brother or cousin of Boaz.” We do not have his name possibly because he would 				not perform the duties of a kinsman-redeemer (Deu. 25:10).
			2) The elders were ten men of the city, witnesses, “witness, one who sees.” “This 				number apparently comprised a quorum to officially transacting business, although only 				two or three witnesses were needed for judicial proceedings (cf. Deu. 17:6; 19:15).” 
			The Book of Ruth 	author, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., noted, 
			“Their authority extended to murder trials (Deut. 19:12; 21:1-9; Josh. 20:4), disputes 				over virginity (Deut. 22:150), asylum (Deut. 19:11-12; Josh. 20:1-6), and levirate 				marriage (Deut. 25:5-10). In this case, they were called upon to ratify the settlement of 				family redemption rights (Ruth 4:9, 11).”

		b. Boaz clarified what was expected of the redemption.
			1) He declared to the nearest relative and the elders that Naomi needed a redeemer and 			was putting her land up for sale; Boaz then offered to redeem it if the nearest relative 				did not desire to do so.
			2) He described the sale as the redemption of Ruth as well as the land; the nearest 				relative declined to redeem the property when informed that a levirate marriage with 				Ruth came with the sale. This was because he probably already had heirs and did not 				want to “have the family portfolio split between his existing children and the potential 				offspring of a union with Ruth”. Or possibly he did not want to financially support both 				the land and Ruth.
		c. Boaz claimed Ruth.
			1) Boaz bought, “to get, bought,” all, “the whole, complete,” from Naomi that had 				belonged to Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon. This was much potentially more than just 				the piece of property first mentioned. The price of the redemption was to be paid to 				Naomi.  													2) Boaz acquired, “to get someone or something through a purchase or other method,” 				Ruth. The noble man and the remarkable woman were united in a way only God could 				engineer, solving the curse of the Moabites and demonstrating God’s desire to welcome 				all who would come to Him in faith. While Ruth was at first identified as “the Moabitess” 			and “the widow of Malon,” she was at last called Boaz’s “wife,” resident of Bethlehem 				and citizen of Israel.											3) Boaz received a wedding blessing: 	
			May The LORD make, “to give, put, set,” the woman… be like Rachel and Leah, who, with 			their maids gave birth to the twelve sons of Jacob, the ancestors of the twelve tribes of 				Isarael; and may your house, “the household that resides within the house”, be like, like, 				as, when,” the house of Perez. Perez was the levirate son of Judah and his daughter-in-				law, Tamar. The blessing of the town’s people referenced how 	God had blessed the birth 				of Perez, the ancestor of the Bethlehemites (1 Ch. 2:3-5; 4:1).	
			4) Boaz took, “to take, marry,” Ruth and she became his wife, “woman” (Rut. 4:6, 8-9, 				11-13).

		WHAT WERE NORMAL MARRIAGE CEREMONIES LIKE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL?
		A typical wedding in ancient Israel was a two-part affair. First there was the arranged marriage, a 			legal marriage contract negotiated between the parents of the bride and groom, followed by the 			betrothal period, twelve months of preparation for the home and for wedding clothes, and for 			the proven fidelity of the partners. Next, there was the wedding itself: there was a blessing said 			over the couple (there was no rabbi or priest presiding at the wedding and no vows, as is 			customary in modern weddings), the couple bathed (separately) and dressed up in finery and 			jewelry (Jer. 2:32), the bridegroom fetched his bride from her father’s home, and then together 			they processed to the groom’s house for a wedding feast. These feasts could last for a week or 			more; at the end of the feast the marriage was consummated, and proof of the wife’s virginity 			was displayed before the wedding witnesses.
		The wedding of Boaz and Ruth had some of the elements of the traditional wedding: Boaz 			negotiated and made a marriage contract for Ruth and received a blessing from the townspeople, 		Ruth was bathed and dressed in her finest clothes and anointed with perfumed oil, and Boaz took 		Ruth to his home and she became his wife. Was there a wedding feast? Scripture does not say. It 			was a usual but not an integral part of the wedding. For example, when Isaac married Rebekah, 			his servant brought her to Isaac from Haran and, “Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, 			and he took, “to take, accept, marry,” Rebekah, and she became his wife (Gen. 24:67); when 			David married Abigail, Nabal’s widow, “David sent a proposal to her, to take her as his wife…she 			followed the messengers of David and became his wife” (1 Sa. 25:39, 42).
		Author Herbert Lockyer wrote of the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, 
		“So, the idyllic conclusion was reached, with Ruth being lifted out of obscurity into a happy union 			with Boaz, the mighty man of wealth. The story provides us with one of the first records in world 			history of a rise from rags to riches, from poverty to plenty.”

She Is Linked to the Messiah.
A. She Became the Mother of Obed.												
“And he [Boaz] went in to her. And the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son” (Rut. 4:13).
	1. They became a normal couple.
		a. They consummated their marriage. Went into her: this is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. 			Theirs was not a platonic relationship but a true marriage of sexual intimacy. This is important 			because 	the purpose of this levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family name of Elimelech 			through the birth of a male child. 
		b. Ruth conceived a child. The LORD (YAHWEH), enabled, “to give,” her to conceive, “to be 			pregnant”; she had been barren in Moab, but she was fruitful in Bethlehem. Here is another 			example of the sovereignty of God in controlling the womb as he had done with Sarah, Jacob’s 			wives, Hannah, Manoah’s wife, and would do with Michal, David’s wife (Gen. 21:2; 29:31; 30: 17, 			22; Jud. 13: 7, 24; 1 Sa. 1:20; 2 Sa. 6:23).
		“Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psa. 127:3).
		c. Ruth completed her pregnancy and gave birth, “to bear, bring forth,” to a son, “son”; here was 			the heir for which the levirate marriage had been undertaken, the one who would inherit the 			property of Elimelech. Here also was the child who took away her stigma of barrenness, because 			Hebrews regarded childlessness as a sign of divine disfavor. This first-born male child would be 			the legal heir of Elimelech and be considered as Mahlon’s son. As John 	MacArthur noted, “Ruth 			vicariously bore the son that would restore the family name of Naomi’s deceased son Mahlon.” 			Any of Ruth’s subsequent children would legally belong to Boaz. Though Scripture is silent on this 			point, perhaps Ruth was rewarded with other children as was Hannah, 	who gave up her first son, 			Samuel, to serve the LORD (1 Sa. 2:21). 

		WHAT WAS CHILDBIRTH LIKE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL?
		Women gave birth upon a birthing stool. A birthing stool was a low three-legged or four-legged 			stool in the shape of a crescent or U; a woman would sit, squat, or stand over the open part of 			the stool and the baby would be delivered there. A woman usually had two helpers aiding her, 			one to support or massage her back and one to assist in delivering the child. If a midwife was 			available, then she was the one assisting the birth, but when one was not present family 				members helped, or the woman gave birth alone. Childbirth was a perilous time for a woman 			because mortality rates were high for her, and also for her infant; Rachel died giving birth to her 			second son, Benjamin, while enroute to Jerusalem from Bethel (Gen. 33:16-19), and 				Phinehas’ wife died delivering her son after going into premature labor (1 Sa. 4:19-20).
	2. They became co-parents with Naomi.
	“Then the women said to Naomi, ‘Blessed is the LORD, who has not left you without a redeemer today, and 	may his name become famous in Israel. May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old 	age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him’”. 
		a. Naomi rejoiced in Obed’s birth with the neighborhood women (shaken, “a fellow dweller, 			neighbor”).													1) They blessed, “to kneel, bless,” Yahweh for giving Naomi a redeemer, “one who would 				“act as a kinsman.” The child would be a kins-man redeemer for Naomi.					2) They asked Yahweh to make his name famous, “to call, proclaim,” in Israel.					3) They asked Yahweh to make him be a restorer, “to turn back,” of life, nephesh, 				“a living being,” and sustainer, “to comprehend, contain,” of her old age, “hoary head.” 				Obed would, thus, care for Naomi in her old age. 								4) They praised Ruth for being one “who loves, “dearly loves,” you [Naomi] and is 				better, “good,” to you than seven sons,” i.e., a perfect daughter-in-law, who has 					given birth to him [a redeemer].

			As commentator Victor Matthews noted,
			The birth of a son was the culmination of joy for the women present, who exclaimed, Praise be to 				the LORD! and addressed their delight to Naomi rather than to Ruth. Honour was due to the older 				generation, and those who had known Naomi before she went to Moab would be overjoyed to 				see how the Lord was providing for her future. Their prayer that he might be famous throughout 				Israel is shown to have been answered in the genealogy of David (17). Naomi, the central figure in 				the opening chapter of the story, is the central figure again at its close. The emptiness of 				bereavement had now been replaced by fulness; bitterness by joy (1:21). Because the child would 				have been regarded as the grandson of Elimelech and Naomi, her husband’s name would not die 				and his property would have an heir.	
		b. Naomi received the child to herself:										1) Naomi took, “to take, receive,” the child and laid, “to put, set,” him in her lap, 				“bosom.” The picture here is of Naomi tenderly receiving the precious child and holding 				him against her heart. She had become empty in Moab, but she became full in 					Bethlehem with the birth of an heir.
			2) Naomi became the child’s nurse, “to confirm, support,” i.e., a nanny. This word was 				used of the nanny who took care of Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth (2 Sa. 4:4). 					Apparently, Ruth gave Naomi a major role in raising the boy who was Naomi’s legal heir.				3) Naomi’s neighbors gave him the name Obed, “servant,” or ““a servant who 					worships” saying, “A son has been born to Naomi!” 	
			It is curious that the neighbors name the child and not the family members; obviously, 				they anticipated his role in Naomi’s later life as her provider. The only other place in the 				Bible where non-family members try to name a newborn is in the Gospel of Luke 				where John the Baptist was being named: “And they were going to call him Zacharias, 				after his father. But his father answered and said, ‘No indeed; but he shall be called 				John’” (Luk. 1:59); in Luke, Zacharias rejected the advice of others, here, the neighbors’ 				suggestion is accepted. 

B. She Became the Great-Grandmother of David.
“So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron, and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, and to Amminadab was born Nashon, and to Nashon, Salmon, and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David” (Rut. 4:17-22). 
The book of Ruth draws to a close with the genealogy of Obed, where Ruth, the Moabite, is listed as the great-grandmother of King David. It is also worth noting that Boaz, the father of Obed and great-grandfather of David, was the son of Salmon. This man, Salmon, was married to Rahab, the harlot of Jericho, a Gentile who became a God-fearing woman, like Ruth. (Mat. 1:5). So, in the genealogy of David there are two converted Gentile women, demonstrating that God accepts all believers as equal in His sight, whether Jew or Gentile, male or female.
	1. David is considered the greatest of Israel’s kings. He is the standard by which all other kings of Israel and 	Judah have been measured. He was a devoted follower of Yahweh and worshiped and served God with a 	whole heart. As king he united the tribes of Israel, was an expert warrior who defended Israel from her 	enemies and expanded her borders, established Jerusalem as the capitol of the nation, and ruled with 	wisdom and humility. Though his great sin with Bathsheba brought a “sword to his house” (2 Sa. 11), 	through all of his trials he was a man who took responsibility for his actions, showed true repentance for 	his sins, and lived in dependence upon God.
		a. David was “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sa. 13:14; Act. 13:22), i.e., a man who desired to 			know and obey God.										
		b. David was the son of Jesse.											1) Jesse had seven sons, of whom David was the youngest.							2) David was a shepherd for the family and as such learned to husband and to defend 				the flock from enemies, a practice that transferred to his future kingly role.					3) David loved and revered God, and his devotion led him to compose psalms of worship 			and praise while he was a shepherd and afterwards. (2 Sa. 23:1).				
		c. David was the second king of Israel.										1) David was anointed as king by the Prophet Samuel, the first king from the line of 				Judah, in fulfillment of the prophecy given by Jacob “the scepter shall not depart 				from Judah” (Gen. 49:10; 1 Sa. 16).										2) David became king over the tribe of Judah when he was twenty-three years old, after 				the death of King Saul, and reigned from Hebron for seven and ½ years (2 Sa. 2:4); he 				became king over all Israel at the age of thirty, and he reigned from Jerusalem for 				thirty-three years (2 Sa. 5:4, 5); his total reign was 40 years.							3) David built Jerusalem as his capitol.									
		d. David was a prophet of God.											1) He was a psalmist and wrote at least 73 of the 150 Psalms.							2) He was called a prophet by the Apostle Peter for his Messianic Psalms (Act. 2:30-32), 				and David himself said he spoke as prompted by the Holy Spirit (2 Sa. 23:2).
		e. David was the recipient of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sa. 7: 12-13; 1 Ch. 17:11-14; 2 Ch. 6:16):				1) The unconditional promise of a great name.								2) The unconditional promise of a land for Israel.								2) The unconditional promise of a “house:”
			--A continuous line of rulers from David.									--A descendant whose throne would be eternal.								--A divine father-son relationship with God and one of David’s descendants.												
C. She Became the Ancestress of Jesus.
While the book of Ruth closes with a genealogy that stops with King David, Ruth’s story continued—her bloodline continued through the centuries until Jesus the Christ (Greek) or the Messiah (Hebrew) was born of Mary. He is not only the greatest descendant of David, but He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16). Of His kingdom there will be no end (2 Sa. 7:12-16; Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Mic. 4:7; Luk. 1:33). It will be a kingdom of eternal peace and joy (Isa. 9:7; 1 Th. 4:17; Rev. 21-22).
	1. Jesus is physically a descendant of David. He was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary (a direct 	descendant of David), was born in Bethlehem, and grew up in Nazareth (Mat. 1:18; Luk. 2:4-7, 39-40).   	The genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew (Mat. 1:1-17) traces Jesus’ family tree from Abraham to David 	(through Obed) to Joseph, Jesus’ adopted father. (By Joseph, Jesus obtained the right to be king.) The 	genealogy of the Gospel of Luke outlines the royal line of Mary, again passing through Obed, Ruth’s son 	with Boaz (Luk. 3:23-37). 
	John MacArthur penned this commentary on the genealogies,
	Luke’s record is apparently traced from Mary’s side, the Eli of Luke 3:23 probably being Joseph’s father-in-law (often 	referred to as a father) and therefore Mary’s natural father. Matthew’s intent is to validate Jesus’ royal claim by 	showing His legal descent from David through Joseph, who was Jesus’ legal, though not natural father. Luke’s intent is 	to trace Jesus’ actual royal lineage from David. Matthew follows the royal line through David and Solomon, David’s son 	and successor to the throne. Luke follows the royal line through Nathan, another son of David. Jesus was therefore the 	blood descendant of David through Mary and the legal descendant of David through Joseph. Genealogically, Jesus was 	perfectly qualified to take the throne of David.	
	2. Jesus is the Son of God. The miracle of the incarnation was prophesied by Isaiah over 700 years before 	the birth of Christ: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name 	Immanuel, which translated, means ‘God with us’” (Mat. 1:23; Isa. 7:4). When the angel Gabriel came to 	the virgin Mary to announce the news that she would conceive a son supernaturally, he said, “Behold, you 	will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be 	called the Son of the Most High” (Luk. 1:31-32). The Apostle John explained the miracle this way, “In the 	beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with 	God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only 	begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:1-2, 11).
		a. Jesus is fully man (Isa. 9: 6-7; Mat. 2:1; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:17-18): He was born, matured, 				hungered, became weary, ate and drank, slept and woke, grieved and was in all ways like the rest 			of humanity except for sin (Heb. 2:1). In His incarnation God the Son took on another nature, that 		of humanity, and veiled His deity to live a sinless life and to die a sacrificial death (Phi. 2:6-8). 	
		b. Jesus is fully God; He lost none of His Godly attributes when He took on humanity. He was 100 			percent man and 100 percent God, two natures in one Person in what is called the hypostatic 			union (Isa. 7:4; 9:6; Psa. 2:6-12; 45:6-7; 110:1; Jer. 23:6; Dan. 7:13; Mic. 5:2; Zac.13:7; Mal. 3:1; 			Jn. 1:1-3, 14, 18; 2:24-25; 3:16-18, 35-36; 4:14-15; 5:18, 20-22, 25-27; 11:41-44; 20:28; 1 Jn. 1:3; 			2:23; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10-13, 20; Rom. 1:7; 9:5; 1 Cor. 1:1-3; 2:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 2:20; 4:4; Phi. 2:6; 			Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1-3, 5, 8; 4:14; 5:8).	

		c. Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Though God is One 			(Deu. 6:5) the Triune nature of God is specifically mentioned in two places, Matthew 28:19, and 			2 Corinthians 13:14. The three persons of the Godhead can also be seen in the creation account 			(Gen. 1:26) and in the baptism of Jesus (Mat. 3:16-17). While the word “Trinity” does not appear 			in Scripture it is clear that there are three members in the Godhead, co-equal, eternal, existing in 			unity, having the same essence and attributes, yet occupying certain distinct roles for the 			purposes of redemption: the Father sent the Son (Jn. 12:49-50; 1 Jn. 4:10), the Son stepped down 		from heaven, became a man, and bore man’s sin penalty at Calvary (Phi. 2:5-8), and the Spirit 			testifies about Jesus, convicts men of sin, and leads men to repentance and faith (1 Jn. 5:6-8; Jn. 			16:8; Tit. 3:5).
	3. Jesus is the “Son of David” (Gen. 49:10; Mic. 5:2-5; Psa. 2:2-12; 110:1; Isa. 11:1-5; Mat. 22:41-42). The 	title “Son of David” is Messianic, or refers to the Messiah, the Christ, who is the anointed King of the Jews. 	As Nelson’s New Bible Dictionary noted, “In Old Testament times, part of the ritual of commissioning a 	person for a special task was to anoint him with oil. The phrase ‘anointed’ one was applied to the person 	in such cases.” They went on to say, “The Messiah” [was] the one anointed by God and empowered by 	God’s Spirit to deliver His people and establish His kingdom. In Jewish thought, the Messiah would be the 	king of the Jews, a political leader who would defeat their enemies and bring in a golden era of peace and 	prosperity.” Old Testament believers could not see that the Messiah would have two kingdoms: 1) a 	spiritual 	kingdom of believing saints, and 2) a physical kingdom where Jesus will rule and reign. In Jesus’ 	First Coming He came as a sinless human to “seek and save the lost” and accomplish redemption, and His 	kingdom was a spiritual one within the redeemed (Luk. 19:10; Jn. 18:36); in Jesus’ Second Coming He will 	physically come to sit on David’s throne in Israel in the Messianic Kingdom (Isa. 9:7) and rule for 1,000 	years over the earth “with a rod of iron” (Psa. 2:1-6; 110:2-3; Rev. 12:5, 20:6). Then, after judging the 	rebellious nations and putting an end to sin, He will rule forever from the New Jerusalem on a perfect New 	Earth (Rev. 20:11-15; 21:1-22:5).
	4. Jesus is the Lamb of God. In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist, speaking to his disciples, saw Jesus 	and declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). Further in the 	Gospel account the Apostle John wrote, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, 	that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the 	world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (Jn. 3:16-17). Even the name of 	Jesus points to His saving work: when the angel Gabriel came to the virgin Mary, he told her to name her 	unborn child Jesus [Savior] because “He will save His people from their sins” (Mat. 1:21). Because of His 	great love for mankind Jesus became the substitute sacrifice for sin for all who will believe in Him, dying 	on the cross of Calvary in their stead, paying the penalty for sin in His body, and rising from the dead on 	the third day (1 Co. 15:4). It is written in the book of First John that, “He [the Father] loved us and sent His 	Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10). Jesus is the only Savior, “For there is no other name 	under heaven by which we must be saved” (Act. 4:12).

	5. Jesus Christ is the true kinsman-redeemer. Jesus came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mat. 20:28; 	Mar. 10:45), to redeem mankind from the penalty of death and hell (Gal. 3:13; Mat. 22:37). As Google AI	wrote “Jesus is considered the ultimate ‘kinsman-redeemer’ (goel) because, by taking on human flesh 	(becoming our kin), He qualified to pay the debt of sin humanity could not, redeeming us from 	bondage.” Jesus said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly (Jn. 10:10), and “For the 	Son of Man came to seek and that which was lost” (Luk. 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15). The Gospel of John affirms 	that, “For God so love the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall 	not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that 	the world might be saved through Him (Jn. 3:16-17).

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HER? 
1. Ruth was a woman of steadfast and self-sacrificing love. This was not the natural love of Orpah, who turned back from following Naomi after she counted the cost; rather, Ruth’s was the supernatural, hesed, love of the regenerated heart. Galatians 5:22 reminds us that the fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” This “love” is the Greek word, agape, an active love. This love is the evidence of salvation: “Love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 Jn. 4: 7-8). Romans 5:5 says, “The love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” God puts His love in the hearts of His children. This is the same kind of love that caused the Father to send His only begotten Son into the world: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). This is the love that all born-again Christians have for God, other believers, and the unsaved (1 Jn. 4:1-12). But unregenerated people, like Orpah, cannot love like this because they do not have the Spirit of God. The unregenerated person loves those who love them (Luk. 6:32), the world and the things in the world (1 Jn. 2:15-17), the praise of men (Jn. 12:43), and sin and idolatry (Jn. 3:19); this was why Orpah went back to her people and her gods. 
2. Yahweh is a God of hesed, or steadfast love. Two commentaries describe it this way: “When hesed refers to God it indicates divine love flowing out to sinners in unmerited kindness… In a religious sense the hesed of God always signals His merciful and faithful aid”; and it is, “His loyal love and favor toward his people.” His hesed love is most fully illustrated in sending Jesus to die for sinners when we were helpless to save ourselves (Rom. 5:6). He has promised, among other things, to never leave us or forsake us (Heb. 13:5), to meet our physical needs (Mat. 6:26), to renew our strength (Isa. 40:31), to give us peace (Jn. 14:27), to give us joy (Jn. 15:11), to give us eternal life and fellowship with Him (Jn. 13:16; 7:3), to prepare an eternal home for us (Jn. 14:2-6), to reward us for faithful service (2 Co. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; Jas. 1:12; Rev. 2:10; 1 Co. 9:24-25; 1 Th. 2:19; 1 Pe. 5:4), and to bring trials into our lives to perfect us (Jas. 1:2-4). To Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus… forever and ever (Eph. 3:21).
 3. God sovereignly and providently worked in the lives of Ruth and Naomi to bring good to them, in bringing them together, in supplying a bountiful harvest in Israel that would provide for their needs, in putting a desire in Naomi’s heart to return to Bethlehem, in directing Ruth to Boaz’s field to glean in safety and abundance, in touching Boaz’s heart to admire Ruth and want to redeem her, in bringing the nearest relative to the city gate just as Boaz had called together a quorum of elders, and in giving the barren Ruth a son and redeemer. The book of Ruth is an example of what God does for all His saints: He watches over His people and blesses them, working all things together for good (Rom. 8:28-31). He watches for opportunities to support His children and build their faith (2 Ch. 16:9). He loves us with hesed love (Psa. 136). This should encourage us to trust Him in the trials of our lives even when we cannot see the good that God is doing for us. 
4. God accepts people of all nations, languages and tribes who believe in Him and submit their lives to His lordship (Rom. 10:9). He is not a respecter of persons; Jew and Gentile, men, and women, are all welcome to come to Him through faith in the work of Christ (Rom. 2:9-11). The book of Revelation states that in heaven there will be a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and foreign language group, worshiping and praising God for their salvation (Rev. 7:9). Ruth became part of the truly redeemed when she acknowledged her sins, sought forgiveness and gave her life to God. She believed in God and was saved by her faith (Eph. 3:8-9). Like her, all people, regardless of station in life, ethnicity, or sex, must “enter by the narrow gate” of faith and repentance to find life eternal in Christ (Mat. 7:13-14). There will be judgment and wrath for all those who are stubbornly unrepentant, for Jew and Gentile alike, but glory, honor and peace to the righteous, whether Jew or Gentile (Rom. 2:5-9). 
5. In Boaz as redeemer we have a prefigure of Christ. John MacArthur wrote of the work of the kins-man redeemer,
This earthly custom pictures the reality of God the Redeemer doing a greater work (Pss. 19:14; 78:35; Isa. 41;14; 43:14) by reclaiming those who needed to be spiritually redeemed out of slavery to sin (Psa. 107:2; Isa. 62:12). Thus Boaz pictures Christ, who as a Brother (Heb. 2:17) redeemed those who 1) were slaves to sin (Rom. 6:15-18), 2) had lost all earthly possessions/privileges in the 	Fall (Gen. 3:17-19), and 3) had been alienated from God (2 Co. 5:18-21). Boaz stands in the direct line of Christ (Mat. 1:5; Luk. 3:32).
From before the foundation of the earth God purposed to save a people by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross of Calvary (Eph. 1:4-8). Jesus became our kinsman through the incarnation and our Redeemer by shedding His blood as payment for our sins. Titus 2:14 says, “Jesus gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (cf. Rom. 3:24; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pe. 1:18-19; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9:12). And Ephesians 1:7 says, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us.” We don’t deserve redemption because all of our works were like filthy rags to God (Isa. 64:6) and our sins called for death (Rom. 6:23). However, as Ephesians 2:4-5 says, “But God being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).” 
6. Yahweh, our God, is sovereign over His creation (Psa. 103:19; Dan. 4:35). He controls the day of our births and deaths (Ecc. 3:2), where and when we live (Act. 17:26), and the trajectory of our lives (Pro. 3:5-6; 16:9; Psa. 37:23). Ruth did not know when she left Moab that she would marry Boaz; she did not know that by marrying Boaz she would become the mother of Obed; she did not know that Obed would be the grandfather of Israel’s greatest earthly king, King David; and she did not know that her bloodline would carry through to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. But God planned it. Jeremiah 10:23 says, “I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.” Just like Ruth, our lives are in the hand of our loving God, and while we may or may not discern His guiding hand, He is working in us and through us to accomplish His good will. As in a tapestry, God is weaving the various threads of our lives in ways we cannot understand into the fabric of eternity. And on the day when we believers gather around His throne and cast our crowns at His feet, we will give Him all the glory for the wonderful things He accomplished through us (Rev. 4:10).

© Copyright Kathryn Capoccia 2026.  This file may be freely copied, printed out, and distributed as long as copyright and source statements remain intact, and that it is not sold.