AP

One of the most controversial points of interpretation in the book of Ruth is what was Naomi thinking when she suggested that her daughter-in-law Ruth visit Boaz on the threshing floor during the Barley harvest? All commentators agree that the incident is highly charged sexually. But were her actions dubious or virtuous?

Perhaps because the book is primarily about a woman—and a vulnerable one at that—many Christians are zealous to defend Ruth’s character. Whereas others seem to relish the provocative nature of the situation. However, the incident in question is much more nuanced than most people recognise.

What follows are several points of consideration when seeking to prayerfully discern what actually took place. And then in conclusion I will offer some brief suggestions as to how this particular incident points to our own salvation in Jesus Christ.

Some Points to Consider

First, we must always resist the temptation to simple read ourselves back into the text of Scripture. The purpose of the book of Ruth is not to offer advice on dating, or to exalt a female role model for all Christians to follow. Instead, if you take a look at the graph below you’ll see that there is a deliberate parallel with a couple of other incidents in the Bible which also involve sexual indiscretion and are related to both Ruth and Boaz’s own ancestry.[1]

It is crucial to keep these former incidents from Genesis 19 and 38 in mind, because they show how the LORD is redeeming a sinful situation. Ruth is not only a Gentile but belongs to the people of Moab which meant that, according Deuteronomy 23:3-4, they were forbidden from entering the sanctuary of the LORD because of they failed to help Israel when they were in need. We tend to miss the spiritual significance of this, but it truly was an act of grace that someone like Ruth could be included among the people of God.

Second, another interpretative point to remember is that the book of Ruth takes place at the time of the Judges.[2] This was a time in Israel’s history when “Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25, 17:6). The book of Judges explains how immoral the people of God were because of this and foreshadows the coming of the kingship as outlined in the next two books of the Bible (1 and 2 Samuel). The book of Ruth thus forms something of a “hinge” between those two eras.

Third, following on from the previous point, we should keep in mind that not everything which happens in Scripture is meant to be taken prescriptively as an example to emulate. Take, for instance, the person of Samson. In Judges 16:1 it says that he went to visit a prostitute – clearly the wrong thing to do! And yet, God used a tremendously fallen figure such as him to rescue the nation Israel from her enemies.

Fourth, there are numerous aspects about what the Gentile Ruth is encouraged to do by her Israelite mother-in-law Naomi, which should leave us as the reader uneasy to say the least.[3] Note the following aspects which Naomi instructed Ruth to do:

• To bath and perfume herself, a highly suggestive act which, based upon passages such as Ezekiel 16:9, Daniel Block observes was, “a normal first step in preparation for a sexual encounter and/or marriage”.[4]

• Ruth was told to take off her garment of widowhood, showing that the period of mourning for her late husband was over and she was again eligible to be married.

• Naomi tells her daughter-in-law to approach Boaz after he has “finished eating and drinking” and so would be in “good spirits” (Ruth 3:3, 7).

• Ruth is explicitly told to ‘uncover his feet and lie down’ (Ruth 3:4) at a time and place which would be viewed as being conducive to acts of sexual impropriety.[5]

• The Hebrew term ‘to uncover’  is often used in Scripture as a reference to uncovering someone’s nakedness (Lev. 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21; Ezek. 22:10).

• What’s more, the verb ‘to lie’ is often a reference to sexual relations (Gen. 30:15-16; 2 Sam. 11:11). Block, however, notes that except for these two references, ‘…the relations are always illicit (incest, homosexuality, bestiality, rape, seduction): Gen 19:32-33; Lev 20:11-13, 18, 20; Deut 22:25; 27:20-23; 35:22.’[6]

• The Hebrew noun for ‘feet’ can be used euphemistically for someone’s genitals (Exod. 4:25; Jdg. 3:24; 1 Sam. 24:3; Isa. 7:20; Deut. 28:57; Ezek. 16:26; Isa. 6:2).[7]

So, did anything happen?

The evidence presented above might suggest a rather obvious—albeit highly embarrassing—foregone conclusion. But this doesn’t necessarily need to be the case.[8] While Ruth did precisely what Naomi instructed her to do, this doesn’t mean that an inappropriate sexual encounter with Boaz occurred. As Block helpfully explains:

Ruth the Moabitess is indeed descended from Lot by his eldest daughter, but the narrator is careful to present her as the antithesis of the stereotypical Moabite. In fact, she is deliberately portrayed throughout as embodying the Israelite standards of hesed [“covenant faithfulness”].[9]

Nothing in the passage suggests that Boaz took advantage of Ruth. Instead, Boaz seeks to protect Ruth’s reputation as a woman of ‘noble character’ by telling her stay where she is until morning, and to leave before anyone recognises her. When she does depart, he also fills her shawl with a generous supply of grain (Ruth 3:15).

Jesus our True Kinsman-Redeemer

As I said earlier, we must not view the book of Ruth ‘romantically’ in terms of giving date advice, when it’s ultimately about Christ (Luke 24:27; 2 Cor. 1:20). That is, it’s about our spiritual redemption, the gospel of grace coming to undeserved sinners like Ruth and Boaz and ourselves (See 1 Tim. 1:15-16). The advice of Naomi is an illustration that while people often act sinfully, their actions are in the providence of God re-orchestrated to not only do good, but the saving of many lives (e.g. Gen. 50:20).

This is further shown at the start of the book, where there was no bread in Bethlehem (the House of Bread), but by the end of the book there is not only a harvest, but the family line of David is wonderfully preserved. What’s more, the genealogy in Luke 3:21-38 shows that this was integral to the LORD’s sovereign plan. For now the true Son of David has come, and He has redeemed people to Himself from every nation under heaven (John 3:16).

– Mark Powell

[1] This table is an adaptation of a similar table found in an article by Harold Fisch, ‘Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History,’ Vetus Testamentum XXXII, 4 (1982), 430—31.  Significant changes have been made to various details but the overall structure remains essentially the same.

[2] This connection is made explicit in Ruth 1:1 which says, “In the days when the judges ruled…”

[3] There are clear indications in the book of Ruth that Naomi was not in the best place spiritually. For instance, at the end of chapter 1she tells people to call her ‘Mara’ “because the Almighty has made my life very bitter’. Ruth 1:20. Yes, she has lost her husbands and two sons, but she seems to be struggling to truly trust the LORD as Job famously did when everything was taken from him (Job 1:20-22).

[4] Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (1999), 683.

[5] Block, Ruth, states, “What is one to think of a woman who bathes, puts on perfume, and then in the dark of night goes out to a field where the man is sleeping and uncovers his legs? Under ordinary circumstances these look like the actions of a prostitute.” 686. However, Block goes on to caution though that an “…overtly sexual interpretation of Naomi’s directions seems to read far more into the text than is intended.” 686.

[6] Block, 685.

[7] Ibid, 685. While the connection is not immediately obvious in most English translations, each of the passages listed refers to the ‘uncovering of one’s feet’. The context demonstrates that this is of a sexual nature or the exposing of one’s ‘privates’.

[8] K. Lawson Younger, Judges/Ruth (IVP, 2002), ‘That sexual overtones are present in the action of a woman uncovering a man’s legs in the dark of the night and lying down, there can be no doubt. But that our author intends the explicitly sexual sense of “uncover his genitals and lie down” is in my opinion utterly improbable.’ 459.

[9] Block, 685.