In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, Samwise Gamgee demonstrates uncommon devotion to his friend Frodo. Sam sticks by Frodo through their arduous journey, and when his friend is too weak to finish, Samwise carries him up Mount Doom, iconically declaring: “I can’t carry it [the ring] for you, but I can carry you!”

In the book of Ruth, Boaz showed extraordinary care for the young foreign woman who providentially appeared in his fields. In verse 8, Boaz broke his conversation with the foreman and addressed Ruth for the first time—as “daughter,” which was beautifully significant. Despite her foreign status, he saw her as kin.

Some commentators believe that something happened to Ruth during her “rest in the shelter” (v. 7). The harvesters had possibly approached her in an unwelcome way, which drove her to leave. Boaz had to tell her twice not to go (v. 8). He instructed her to stay with his servant girls. The Hebrew word for “stay” is also used in Ruth 1:14 when Ruth was “clinging to” Naomi. It describes joining together in a continuing relationship.

Boaz then laid out a plan for Ruth’s ongoing care, offering her extraordinary access to the fields. She was to stick close to the other young women for camaraderie and protection. Boaz warned his workers to leave her alone and gave her special permission to drink water the men had drawn (v. 9).

Ruth was overwhelmed by his generosity. She bowed in humble gratitude and asked him why she should enjoy such favor. Boaz responded with glowing admiration. He had heard of Ruth’s sacrificial loyalty to Naomi, her act of hesed. He asked that Yahweh would repay and reward her kindness. He painted a powerful picture of the Lord’s ultimate protection over Ruth. Under God’s wing she would find refuge (vv. 11–12).

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When an author presents a character, it can be done directly or indirectly. With direct characterization the author tells the audience what the character looks or acts like. With indirect characterization the author shows the audience what a character is like through dialogue and actions.

In chapter 2, we learn more about Boaz and Ruth. Verse 4 begins with the little transitional phrase “just then.” In the Hebrew, it carries a greater connotation than just timing. It denotes the suddenness and coordination that only the providential hand of God could orchestrate. God can work in an instant!

As soon as Boaz arrived, he greeted his workers with a blessing from God, and they called back the same to him (v. 4). This seemingly simple exchange says volumes about the sort of landowner and boss Boaz had been. He had clearly created a positive and respectful work environment, where he was in close communication with his harvesters, and God was revered. Immediately, Boaz noticed an unknown young woman in his field, and he asked his foreman to identify her. Ruth is again identified by her nationality—Moabite—and by her connection to Naomi, a widow (v. 6). These facts also qualified her to reap in the fields.

Then, the foreman described Ruth’s actions, also revealing a great deal about her character (v. 7). She had asked permission to glean behind the reapers, which was a respectful gesture, not required by the Law. Ruth had worked hard all day, “except for a short rest in the shelter.” The meaning of this final phrase is difficult to interpret. Given the entire context, some commentators believe that during this rest some other workers had accosted Ruth. We will explore this possibility in the coming days.

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When a new character enters a story, the author must decide what information to share. Excessive back story could detract from the overall narrative. But sharing too little could leave the audience confused. Strategic details are needed, so the new character fits effectively into the plot.

In Ruth chapter 2, another key character, Boaz, is introduced with important descriptors. First, he is described in relationship to Naomi as “a relative on her husband’s side.” Then, it is emphasized that he was “from the clan of Elimelek.” In ancient Israel, the “clan” was the most important grouping in the social structure, and this relationship will become necessary for him to function as a guardian-redeemer. In addition, this new character was “a man of standing” (v. 1). This phrase denotes strength, capability, and wealth. He is a man of status and character: Boaz.

Suddenly, the scene shifts back to the women (v. 2). Ruth is again described as a Moabitess. The author continues to remind his audience of her foreign, vulnerable state. Ruth asked Naomi for permission to go into the fields and glean. Although the Law allowed the poor, aliens, widows, and orphans to do this, they were not always accommodated in reality. Hence, Ruth hoped to glean in the fields of someone who would benevolently allow it (v. 2).

It is interesting that Ruth took the initiative. Naomi was likely still absorbed in her bitterness since she gave only a simple approval. So, Ruth went out to glean. In the Hebrew, the phrase “as it turned out” literally means “her chance chanced” (v. 3). Both the noun and the verb, forms of the same word, are used to communicate that the opposite of “chance” is at work. Rather, a sovereign God was directing the lives of Ruth, Naomi, and Boaz in His gracious providence

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In his book Inexpressible, Michael Card writes, “In the Hebrew mind hesed is always something you do. It is a verb…It is a resonant response to the overwhelming kindness of the God of Exodus 34, who is full of hesed.”

Today, we pause our study of Ruth to look at a striking declaration of the hesed love of God. In Exodus, Moses had communed with the Lord for forty days on Mount Sinai (chapters 16–33). During that time, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and instructions for construction of the tabernacle. While Moses was gone, however, the Israelites grew impatient. They doubted Moses would return, so they begged his brother Aaron to make a golden calf for them to worship (32:1). When Moses returned and saw their idolatry, he broke the tablets into pieces (32:19). Moses confronted Aaron and called the people to repentance. Then, he pled with the Lord on the people’s behalf. God called the people “stiff-necked” and struck them with a plague. But eventually, the people mourned (33:4) and worshiped (33:10). And God called Moses back to the mountain (34:1–2).

This was another private encounter between Moses and the Lord. Not even the animals would witness the exchange (34:3). And when the Lord descended in a cloud to meet Moses, He revealed more about His character—specifically His hesed compassion and grace, forgiveness and faithfulness. The people’s sin did not change His love.

Even so, the Lord explained, sin would be punished (34:7). When Moses asked for additional evidence of God’s presence, God promised to reveal His wonders and drive out their enemies (34:10–11). In return, He asked for their uncompromising devotion (34:11–14).

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are many stories where the protagonist returns home after a long time away, such as The Count of Monte Cristo, Jane Eyre, The Lord of the Rings. In each, the main character comes back changed. But the hero’s motive for returning is different, as is the reception he or she receives.

This final scene of Ruth 1 opens with the women of Bethlehem welcoming Naomi home. The entire town was “stirred” and surprised by Naomi’s return. They were thrilled to have her back! The women said to one another: “Can this be Naomi?” (v. 19), a rhetorical question that carried the force of an exclamation. Naomi responded with sarcasm and accusations. She ordered the women to stop calling her “Naomi,” meaning “beautiful, pleasant, and good” (v. 20). In Hebrew thought, a person’s name was indicative of their character, so Naomi denied her name—twice (vv. 20–21). Instead, she demanded to be called “Mara” or “bitter.”

Even more concerning was Naomi’s accusation against the Lord. First, she blamed the Almighty for making her life “very bitter” (v. 20). The Hebrew word for “bitter” describes great anguish over one’s circumstance. Job made a similar declaration: “the Almighty, who has made my life bitter” (Job 27:2). Next, Naomi contrasted her “full” state when she left Bethlehem with her “empty” condition now. But her family left Bethlehem during a famine, so they could not have been physically full. Rather, she had been full emotionally, and spiritually.

Even though there was food again in Bethlehem, Naomi felt empty and alone. She even failed to acknowledge Ruth as she hurled her accusations at the Lord. The author reminds the audience of Ruth’s presence though—and the Lord’s provision of the harvest (v. 22). Naomi is not, in fact, empty at all.

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you ever made a big promise? A promise comes with expectations. Will the promisor fulfill what has been pledged? And what consequences— good or bad—will follow? In this third conversation from the book of Ruth, a monumental promise is made. After Orpah left, Naomi urged Ruth to leave too. Naomi specified that Orpah was returning not only to her people in Moab but also to her gods. This would have included Chemosh, the national god of the Moabites, whose worship involved horrific pagan practices such as child sacrifice (2 Kings 3:27). Orpah’s decision not only severed her tie to Naomi but marked her return to the culture and religious practices of her people.

In Ruth’s resolute reply, she made it clear that she was being led in a different direction. She asked Naomi to stop trying to persuade her to do otherwise. She refused to return to Moab and reaffirmed her commitment to remain with Naomi. First, Ruth committed to living all of her life with Naomi. “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay” (v. 16). “Go” and “stay” are opposites in the Hebrew. Together these clauses create a literary merism—the contrasting extremes represent the whole.

But Ruth committed not only her ongoing presence to Naomi. She also committed to cultural and spiritual unity. Ruth was “all in”—to the point of death (v. 17). Ruth even swore on the name of Israel’s God, thus acknowledging Him as her own. Hearing this speech, Naomi accepted Ruth’s determination and “stopped urging her” (v. 18). Naomi’s logic could not compete with Ruth’s hesed and faith. The women continued their journey and came to Bethlehem (v. 19). If returning to Bethlehem were the narrative goal, the story would end here. But, of course, that was just the beginning. God had so much more in store.

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A literary foil is a character who stands in contrast to another character. The two characters may be very different, but the foil magnifies the nature of the hero.

Today’s passage begins with Naomi kissing her daughters-in-law as the three women wept—an emotional moment, full of grief, fear, longing, and love. At first, Ruth and Orpah both refused to leave Naomi’s side, declaring their commitment to Naomi above their own community (v. 10). Naomi responded with an impassioned, logical argument based on the Levirate law (Deuteronomy 25). It required a brother to marry his brother’s widow if she had no son. Naomi started with two rhetorical questions: “Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons?” (v. 11).

She painted an impossible hypothetical scenario (v. 12). Even if Naomi married that very night and became pregnant immediately, it would be too long for the women to wait. She was highlighting the foolishness of the young women’s emotional choice. Naomi concluded with some shocking exclamations. She declared, “It is more bitter for me than for you” (v. 13)! And she placed the blame on God Himself. His hand was against her (v. 13). She saw all her trials—famine, displacement, death—as evidence of God’s wrath.

The three women wept again. Naomi’s speech stirred their emotions. Orpah took the logical route. She kissed Naomi good-bye and returned home. Orpah does serve as a foil for Ruth—her departure heightens Ruth’s reaction when she “clung to” Naomi (v. 14). The act of “clinging” implies loyalty and love, leaving connection to one group to join another. This word is also used in Genesis 2:24—“a man leaves his father and mother and is united [clings] to his wife.”

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As an author crafts a story, deliberate choices are made. It’s almost like standing behind a video camera—deciding exactly what the audience will see in each frame. When needed, the camera pulls back for a wide, “establishing shot” to provide setting and context and summarized background. That is what we found in the opening verses of the book of Ruth.

But to help readers experience the characters and feel their emotions, the author “zooms in” for a close-up. Characters are described in more detail. We see their actions and body language and idiosyncrasies. We listen to dialogue that moves the action and exposes motivation.

Today’s passage is the first of many “close-up scenes” in the book of Ruth. Naomi and her two daughters- in-law had left Moab and began the journey back to Bethlehem. The author doesn’t reveal whether the women had discussed this arrangement prior to their departure. Suddenly Naomi stopped them in their tracks and expressed second thoughts. Perhaps the journey had given her time to see the situation from Ruth and Orpah’s perspective. The two young widows were leaving their home just as Naomi had done during the famine. She knew what struggles and loneliness they would face, and she intended to spare them additional pain. She told them to return to their “mother’s home” (v. 8). It is interesting that she used “mother’s” rather than “father’s”—since their fathers would have been their primary source of provision and protection.

Then, Naomi pronounced a blessing on the young widows (v. 9). She asked Yahweh to shower hesed on the women, just as they had already shown hesed to her and their husbands. It couldn’t have been easy for Naomi to send them home. Their departure would seal her lonesome fate. But releasing them was Naomi’s own act of hesed—even in her grief.

Donate to Today in the Word: https://give.todayintheword.org/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.