Thread by @JamesBejon

<THREAD>

The book of Ruth unfolds against the backdrop of dark and dangerous times in Israel,

and shows how great things can come of plain, down-to-earth, unglamorous faithfulness.

It’s a story of great beauty,

but contains an unusual twist.

For details, scroll down.

Image from jw.org. (Theology obtained elsewhere.)

Chapters 3 and 4 make an unusual climax to the book of Ruth.

Why does the book conclude not with the jubilation of Naomi (4.14–17), but with a genealogy (4.18–22)?

And why does the text describe Ruth and Boaz’s night-time encounter in the way it does?

Why do we need to know about what Ruth wears, where she lies down, and how she ‘uncovers Boaz’s feet’?

Even more curiously, why does the text describe Ruth’s encounter with Boaz in such suggestive terms...

...when the people involved in it are elsewhere portrayed as folk of great fidelity (חסד)?

The answer, I submit, concerns Ruth’s relationship to the wider canon of Scripture.

=== CONTEXT ===

Boaz and Ruth aren’t isolated figures in the Biblical narrative;

they’re people with a complex history.

Boaz is a descendant of Tamar, which makes him a man with a chequered past (cp. Gen. 38).

And Ruth’s past is little better.

As a Moabite, she’s a descendant of Lot,

which makes her the product of an encounter similar to Judah and Tamar’s (cp. Gen. 19).

Our text isn’t silent about these details;

on the contrary, it goes out of its way to draw our attention to them.

4.12 describes Perez as the son ‘whom Tamar bore to Judah’;

4.18–22 traces Boaz’s ancestry back to Perez;

and, every other time her name is mentioned, Ruth is referred to as ‘Ruth the Moabite’ (1.22, 2.2, 6, 21, 4.5, 10).

Our text thus invites us to consider a trio of couples—Judah & Tamar, Lot & his daughter, and Boaz & Ruth—,

whose stories resemble one another in a number of important ways:

But Ruth’s story doesn’t merely resonate with these stories;

it brings them together and resolves them in the union of Boaz and Ruth,

which is reflected in its literary details,

since on the one hand Ruth’s story embodies details which connect it to Judah and Tamar’s story,

and on the other it contains various lexical connections to Lot and his daughter’s,

as shown below:

Let’s spell out some of these connections in a bit more detail.

🔹 At the outset of each of the stories mentioned above, a man leaves his ‘homeland’.

Judah leaves Egypt in order to return to Canaan; Lot leaves Abraham in order to take up residence in Sodom and Gomorah; and Naomi leaves Israel in order to sojourn in Moab.

🔹 In all three of the resultant situations, the man on whom the family’s future has come to rely dies at a young age (without children).

Judah’s two sons (Er and Onan) are smitten by YHWH;

Lot’s two sons-in-law are swept away along with Sodom and Gomorrah;

and Naomi’s two sons die in Moab.

As a result, in all three situations, a crisis looms:

a family line seems unable to continue, and an ancestral name is hence endangered.

Judah is reluctant to give his third son to Tamar in marriage (due to the death of his first two sons: cp. Gen. 38.11);

Lot is scared to intermingle with the inhabitants of his new locale in Zoar (Gen. 19.29–30);

and Naomi and Ruth have little to offer a potential husband given both Naomi’s age and Ruth’s status as a Moabite (cp. 4.6).

🔹 In all three situations, a woman decides to take matters into her own hands in order to continue her line.

More specifically, a woman seeks to conceal her identity and approach the nearest ‘eligible’ male.

Tamar covers herself with a veil and waits for Judah to pass by;

Lot’s daughters approach him under cover of darkness;

and Ruth looks as if she plans to follow the lead of her matriarch, Lot’s eldest daughter (to be discussed later).

🔹 All three situations involve the preservation of a ‘seed’ (cp. זרע in Gen. 19.34, 38.8–9, Ruth 4.12), and are fuelled by the consumption of wine.

Judah has been at a sheep-shearers’ festival, where an abundance of wine is likely to have been consumed (cp. 1 Sam. 25);

Lot is plied with wine by his daughters;

and Boaz is merry with wine when Ruth comes to visit him.

🔹 As a result, none of the male procreators-to-be are initially aware of who approaches them.

And, in all three situations, the male who continues the endangered line belongs to an older generation.

Judah is Tamar’s father;

Lot is (obviously) the father of his daughters;

and Boaz belongs to an older than Ruth, and hence refers to her as ‘his daughter’ (2.5–6, 3.10–11).

=== SO WHAT? ===

The connections outlined above introduce provocative overtones to Boaz and Ruth’s night-time encounter.

As Ruth approaches Boaz, we get an uneasy sense of déjà vu, which is exacerbated by our text’s suggestive language.

People lie down together (שכב).

Feet are uncovered.

And a ‘pile of grain pile’ (ערמה from ערם = ‘to pile up’) is mentioned, which brings to mind terms such as עָרוֹם = ‘nakedness’ and עָרְמָה = ‘guile’.

Is another unsavoury sexual encounter about to mar Judah’s line?

Will the recognition/deception motif which has dogged Abraham’s line rear its head again (cp. Isaac’s recognition of Jacob’s voice, and Jacob’s of Joseph’s coat)?

The odds seem stacked against Boaz and Ruth, especially when we recall the last encounter between a Moabite woman and an Israelite man (cp. Num. 25’s idolatry).

And so, when Boaz wakes up and notices an unidentified female at his feet, we fear the worst.

Thankfully, however, ch. 3’s events confound our expectations.

When Boaz asks Ruth, ‘Who are you?’, an honourable reply comes back:

‘I am Ruth’.

The ball is then back in Boaz’s court, who responds equally honourably:

‘May you be blessed of YHWH! Lie down until the dawn!’ (3.13).

A worthy woman (אשת חיל) has met a worthy man (גבור חיל).

Whereas Judah and Onan renege on their responsibilities to Tamar, Boaz upholds his responsibilities to Ruth.

And, whereas Tamar covers herself with a particular garment in order to conceal her identity, Ruth discloses her identity, and Boaz covers her with his garment.

Previous patterns of behaviour are thus put right, and the stigma of the past is removed.

And the manner it which it is removed is significant.

While things go wrong for Tamar when she sits at the gate of Enaim (as they do for Lot at the gate of Sodom),...

...Boaz sits down at the city gate in order to put things *right* (ch. 4).

And, while Lot seeks refuge in a ‘nearer city’ (Zoar), the result of which is disaster, Ruth avoids a ‘nearer’ source of redemption (3.12’s redeemer) and instead finds refuge in Boaz.

Ruth is hence (re)united with the line from which her ancestor long ago departed,

which is why Ruth is referred to not as the Moabite who ‘went’ to the land of Judah, but as the Moabite who ‘returned’ from the land of Moab (2.6).

Indeed, her actions are described (by Boaz) in distinctly Abrahamic tones insofar as she’s said to leave her ‘country’ and ‘homeland’ behind (cp. the use of ארץ and מולדת in 2.11 w. Gen. 12.1).

Though she is not a member of the line of promise by birth, Ruth follows in Abraham’s footsteps and is adopted into his family (cp. Gal. 3).

Ruth’s experience is, therefore, a significant one and is alluded to and/or expanded on in numerous passages in the NT.

Consider, for instance, what happens in Matthew 15.21–28 when Jesus encounters a Canaanite woman who is:

a] in great need,

b] moved by a desire to help her family,

c] outside of YHWH’s covenant,

d] thrice turned away when she seeks to associate herself with Israel (cp. 15.23, 24, 26 w. Ruth 1.8, 11, 15),

e] content to glean from Israel’s leftovers, and

f] ready to cast herself at the feet of an Israelite redeemer (cp. Matt. 15.22’s ιδου γυνη w. 3.8!), who has come to ‘thresh’ wheat in Israel (cp. Matt. 3.11–12).

In recent times, commentators have interpreted the text of Matthew 15.21–28 in light of all sorts of theories (post-colonial theory, critical race theory, gender theory).

One wonders, however, whether the Hebrew Bible might have provided a more fruitful interpretative backdrop.

=== REFLECTIONS ===

Ruth’s is a story about the importance of what may not seem to be important.

Against the backdrop of the book of Judges, when godless male leaders make a mess of things and women end up abused, a faithful man and a faithful woman provide a way for the Messianic line to move forward.

Meanwhile, the failures of two notable patriarchs—viz. Judah and Lot—are rectified not by military might or courage,

but by the sense of duty of two apparently insignificant figures—Boaz and Ruth—,

whose names are now cemented in Biblical history.

The book of Ruth thus elevates what man might be tempted to see as insignificant (as Jesus does when he praises the Canaanite woman’s faith).

A woman’s loyalty to her mother-in-law, a man’s generosity to a foreigner, two individual’s respect for the sanctity of marriage: such things may not gain us applause here and now, but they are of great value in the eyes of God.

THE END.

For those who like to read whole sentences at a time (and/or want a bit more detail),

academia.edu/39775654/