Ruth 2:20
Ruth 2:19 Then her mother-in-law said to her, “Where did you glean today? Seriously, where did you work? May he who took notice of you be blessed.” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked. And she said, “The name of the man with whom I worked today is In Strength (Boaz).”
20 Then My Peasant One (Naomi) said to her young daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed by YHWH
because he (Baoz) has not abandoned his loyalty to the living or the dead.”
And My Pleasant One (Naomi) said to her, “This man is our close relative,
he is one of our family guardians.”
Introduction
Our text this morning continues our study of the book of Ruth.
Notice then the story thus far: Ruth finally arrives home from a long day of gleaning in the field. To Naomi’s amazement, Ruth plops a 50 pound sack of grain down and hands Naomi an already prepared meal to eat.
Naomi is speechless. How in the world did this child manage to get all of this grain?
Ruth then excitedly tells Naomi all about her day: the way she wandered into a field by mistake and the extraordinary kindness of the land owner. Finally, at last, she mentions that the field owner’s name is Boaz.
Naomi is again speechless. She knows that name
Importance: every detail of our passage this morning is about epiphany. That is, for the remainder of this section/chapter, we watch as both Ruth and Naomi gain vital clarity about their situation. Not only that, the final verses of chapter 2 provide us with an epiphany as well. That is, they provide us with vital categories that we will need going forward in the account.
Verse 20
Notice at once the emotional build: That is, notice the way the author quietly allows us to share in the growing excitement of this passage/conversation (he doesn’t tell us the women are excited. He allows us to see it for ourselves). How? Notice that throughout verse 19 Naomi (who feels like God has forsaken her) is simply referred to as Ruth’s “mother-in-law”. However, one 50 pound bag of grain later together with the mention of Boaz’s name and verse 20 returns to calling her ‘My Pleasant One”. Why? In a book that is all about names, the author is allowing us to watch as it is beginning to dawn on Naomi that she is not forsaken but rather she is indeed pleasant to YHWH. Next, notice what Naomi says: however, first notice who she says it to: notice the author is very deliberate here. In fact, in a book that is all about names you will want to watch throughout this section the way that the author plays the proper Hebrew names off of the more general familial descriptions FN#1. Notice then verse 20 does not say that Naomi said to Ruth. Instead, the author intentionally refers to Ruth as Naomi’s young daughter-in-law. Why? Again, the author is quietly allowing us to share as the light of possibility is beginning to dawn in Naomi’s mind. Notice then, as soon as Naomi hears Boaz’s name, the author reminds us that Ruth (the young daughter-in-law) is of marriage age. That is, the author reminds us of Ruth’s relevance to all that is beginning to unfold (especially in light of the O.T. Levirate law FN#2). In other words, as these ideas are beginning to form in Naomi’s mind, the author makes sure they are echoing in our own minds FN#3.
Next, notice what Naomi says: as soon as Ruth mentions Boaz’s name, Naomi exclaims “May he be blessed by YHWH”. Importance: in a book that is all about names, the use of God’s specific covenant name (YHWH) is always significant. Why? It indicates God’s unyielding commitment to His people (even those like Naomi who have lost sight of God’s hand at work in their lives). Notice then the emotional build: in verse 19, before Naomi knows who the field owner is, she gives a general blessing wishing him well for the kindness he has shown. However, immediately upon hearing Boaz’s name, Naomi revises her blessing giving it much more weight. This time she invokes God’s covenant name YHWH and specifically asks God to bless him. Why? For the first time in the whole book, Naomi has a faint hope that maybe, just maybe, God is working in their situation.
Next, notice the reason Naomi gives for the solemnity of her blessing: Naomi asks YHWH to bless Boaz because Boaz did not abandon his loyalty to the living or the dead FN4. In other words, Boaz has shown loyalty and kindness to his deceased relative, Elimelech, by providing for his surviving widow and daughter-in-law. Importance: for the first time in the book, Naomi sees a possible path of deliverance beginning to immerge as well as the possibility that YHWH has not rejected her family from the line of God’s people. In other words, if their relative Boaz did not abandoned them, then maybe YHWH has not abandoned them either.
Next, notice the humorous change in scenery: It is now Ruth’s turn to be baffled. Remember, Ruth still has no idea who Boaz is or his tie to their family. Therefore, as Naomi invokes divine blessings and goes on about the living and the dead, she notices the puzzled blank stare on Ruth’s face. Therefore, Naomi quickly fills Ruth in on the key piece of information that Ruth has been missing up to this point. Notice then, Nomi says, this man is our close relative. Importance: while Boaz’s tie to the family is certainly a factor in his actions, it is not the main factor. Therefore, God makes sure that before Ruth ever learns of this secondary factor, she first experiences the primary cause, which is her conversion, character, and YHWH’s acceptance (without which the rest of the book is not possible regardless of any family tie). Next, notice what Naomi does not say: Naomi does not say that Boaz is a close relative of Elimelech. Instead, she says Boaz is our close relative. Why? Naomi is beginning to see the possible way that God may be working their deliverance. In other words, Naomi realizes that Boaz’s family tie has very real implications for her and Ruth alike. Simply put, the author is allowing us to share Naomi’s epiphany.
Next, notice the emotional build: as Naomi realizes the possibility in Boaz’s family tie, she expands on her explanation of his significance. Thus, she tells Ruth that not only is Boaz their relative, he is in fact one of their family guardians FN#5. Importance: in the book of Ruth there are two distinct legal factors at work going forward. The first is that of the goel (family guardian) and the second is that of the Levirate law (which concerned a widow’s redemption). In the first case, a goel (family guardian) was a close male relative who served as a legal protector/ guardian of the family interests. As such, he had the social and moral obligation to care for the family of his deceased kinsmen and to look after his estate FN#6. The second legal factor is the Levirate law, which required a brother to redeem his deceased brother’s family line by marrying his widow (Deut 25:5-6). However, by the time we reach the book of Ruth, these two legal factors have merged in some cases. As such, the notion of a widow’s redemption set forth by the more restricted Levirate law was extended on a voluntary basis to the goels of the family (to the close male relations who were not direct brothers of the deceased). However, please note: this extension was voluntary and not mandated by O.T. Law as it was in the case of brothers. Notice then the point: it is Boaz’s interest in and kindness towards Ruth that leads Naomi to see that such an extension might be something that Boaz would consider. That is, Boaz might consider redeeming Elimelech’s line by marrying Ruth FN#7. However, at this point in the text that possibility is far from certain. Therefore, Naomi will wait and watch Boaz’s interaction with Ruth for quite a while before she acts in this direction (2:22- 3:1).
Importance: at once both of these legal factors (a family guardian and the redemption of a kinsman’s widow) are directly tied to the notions of land, inheritance, and one’s ongoing place in the future of God’s people FN#8. In other words, just as the Old Testament sacrificial system was an outward depiction of the salvation that Christ would bring; so too God used the outward notions of land, inheritance, and lineage to teach His people about the future He was providing and their ongoing place in it. Thus, to redeem a kinsman’s widow by marrying her and by raising up a child with her was to give an outward demonstration/assurance of her deceased husband’s ongoing/continuing place in the people of God and their future. Notice then, these notions of family guardians and redeemed widows bring the ideas of future and inclusion front and center to the book of Ruth. Ruth is a book all about the future FN#9.
Bottom line: for the first time in the book, Naomi and Ruth are up to speed. That is, for the first time they see all the components of YHWH’s persistent kindness and care. At the same time, we too have been prepared to see the way that God is going to work as we move forward in the book.
Footnote
1] One might argue that alternating between proper names and familial designations (e.g. daughter-in-law) is simply a stylistic device that avoids repetition. However, while this is certainly true in part, there is more to it. In fact, there is a deliberate pattern of when names and familial designations are used that point to a deeper intention on the author’s part. In other words, there is a reason that the author chooses to use Naomi’s Hebrew name at one point and Ruth’s familial designation at another. Case in point: in verse 21 the author uses Ruth’s proper name but then goes out of his way to inform us that Ruth is a Moabite. However, this is a fact about which we are all already clear. In other words, the author’s designation is not stylistic or for mere informational purposes. Instead, in each case the way the author describes a person brings factors to the forefront that are central to the psychology at work in that point of the conversation. Pay attention to the names
(from M-i-l to Naomi from Ruth to D-i-l there is a playfulness here with a purpose)
2] The Old Testament Levirate law is set forth in places like Deuteronomy 25:5-6; Gen 38:8-10; and Matt 22:23-28. It describes a brother’s legal obligation to marry his brother’s widow and continue his brother’s line on his behalf. In turn, it is this law that is being adapted and applied in the book of Ruth.
Deuteronomy 25:5 “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 “And it shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.
Notice at once, we see all the elements that will concern us moving forward being expressed in this law (the notion of land, future, and the continuation of a line). Finally, FYI, the word Levirate, comes from the Latin word levir, “a husband’s brother”.
3] Notice the author’s skill here: the text is not boisterous or explicit about these possibilities. Instead, the author quietly brings them to our mind. Why? Naomi is still not clear that anything will come of these new developments. As such, she has not latched on to any of them (they are not set front and center in her mind- or ours). Instead, Naomi will ponder and watch Boaz’s interaction/treatment of Ruth for the entire barley and wheat harvest before acting. Nonetheless, the author allows us to share the possibility of God’s deliverance that has been unexpectedly been opened to her.
4] many translations take the Hebrew word אֲשֶׁר (who) as a relative pronoun referring back to YHWH. Thus the passage is translated
“May he be blessed of the LORD who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead.”
However, there is a compelling case to be made both grammatically and contextually that אֲשֶׁר serves as a causal conjunction (because) and thus has reference to Boaz. As such, it explains why Naomi feels he is to be blessed. In this case, the passage reads:
“May he (Boaz) be blessed by YHWH because he (Baoz) has not abandoned his loyalty to the living or the dead.”
The grammatical case for the second reading is well stated by the Net Bible’s notes on Ruth 2:20
“Many English versions translate this statement, “May he [Boaz] be blessed by the LORD, who has not abandoned his loyalty to the living and dead.” However, this understanding of the construction is not accurate. Elsewhere when אֲשֶׁר follows the blessing formula it always introduces the reason the recipient of the blessing deserves a reward. (thus אֲשֶׁר serves as a causal conjunction- because.). 2 Samuel 2:5 provides the closest structural parallel to Rut 2:20 and supports this interpretation: “May you all [plural] be blessed by the LORD (singular), because you all [plural] have extended such kindness to your master Saul.” The result is that the evidence suggests that Rut 2:20 should be translated: “May he [Boaz] be blessed by the LORD, because he [Boaz] has not abandoned his loyalty to the living and dead.”
The contextual ground for this translation is that Naomi is just grasping/coming to terms with the fact that maybe she has not been rejected by God. Thus, we see this possibility taking root in her when she strengthens her blessing from v 19 by invoking God’s covenant name (YHWH). However, if the passage were to read, “YHWH who has not withheld…” it would seem a far stronger statement of certainty/resolution than the rest of the context suggests that Naomi has at this time. In other words, at this point Naomi is only just beginning to see YHWH’s favor. Thus, her focus is on Boaz’s kindness (of which she is certain and because of which she is only beginning to hope in YHWH’s favor). As such, Naomi will wait and watch before she ever acts on the possibility that Boaz is YHWH’s deliverance.
Bottom line: the result is that I have translated this passage to read:
“May he (Boaz) be blessed by YHWH because he (Baoz) has not abandoned his loyalty to the living or the dead.”
5] “he is one of our family guardians”- Importance: as we shall see Boaz is not the only goel (family guardian) belonging to Elimelech’s family. In fact, he is not even the main one. There is a relative that is even closer than Boaz, who will play a factor as we move forward (3:12). However, Boaz is a close relative and one who qualifies for the role of guardian.
6] The wider principle of a “close relative” (goel) acting on behalf of a family member is established in places like Numbers 5:7-8 and Leviticus 25:25. In turn, the specific Levirate law is simply one application of this wider principle (albeit an important one) to the specific context of a brother’s widow. In fact, to be precise, in the book of Ruth we see the combination of these two distinct O.T. notions: that of the goel (family guardian) and that of Levirate law (widow’s redemption). Put simply, by the time we reach the days of Judges and the book of Ruth, a widow’s redemption (Levirate law) was voluntarily extended to a family goel (close relative/guardian)
One final point: the popular translation of goel as “kinsman redeemer” is accurate. The word goel is the participial form of the verb gaal which means to redeem (thus the participle goel means the one who redeems). However, I find that this translation though accurate has the tendency to obscure the wider role of the goel. In turn, it also obscures the central covenantal and eschatological provision behind the notion of familial redemption and quickly blurs it with a hasty Christological typology (a connection the New Testament never directly makes). As such, I have translated goel as family guardian to reflect the broader duty expected of such a person and to avoid a New Testament imposition over this notion before it is allowed to speak for itself. The idea is to first learn what God was originally showing His people through the notion of the goel and then discover the way these principles of redemption, future, and inclusion in God’s people are fulfilled by the New.
7] To put this more precisely: Naomi wonders if Boaz might consider redeeming Elimelech’s line by marrying the widow of Elimelech’s son (Ruth) since Naomi, Elimelech’s wife, is beyond child bearing age. As such, it would fall to Ruth to bear a child/heir for the house of Elimelech and thus continue the family’s line.
8] Notice behind the notion of a goel and the care for a deceased kinsman’s family/estate are the notions of preserving one’s place in the land, line, and future of God’s people
Leviticus 25:25 ‘If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest kinsman (goel) is to come and redeem/buy back what his relative has sold.
i.e. keep the relative’s inheritance and thus his place in God’s land/future in the family. Next, notice the same idea is central to the specific Levirate law (esp v 6):
Deuteronomy 25:5 “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 “And it shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, in order that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.
9] Notice: we have already seen this notion of future throughout the book (albeit in a negative sense): thus until now, Naomi has been convinced that God has rejected her and cut her family out of the line of His people. However, what Naomi is beginning to see is that God’s provision of a kinsman redeemer and the continuation of her house in the people of God say otherwise.