Rut 1:3

1:3 Sometime later ¹  Naomi’s husband Elimelech died, so she and her two sons were left alone.

Rut 1:18

1:18 When Naomi ²  realized that Ruth ³  was determined to go with her, she stopped trying to dissuade her. ⁴ 

Rut 2:20

2:20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be rewarded by the Lord because he ⁵  has shown loyalty to the living on behalf of the dead!” ⁶  Then Naomi said to her, “This man is a close relative of ours; he is our guardian.” ⁷ 

Rut 1:6

1:6 So she decided to return home from the region of Moab, accompanied by her daughters-in-law, ⁸  because while she was living in Moab ⁹  she had heard that the Lord had shown concern ¹⁰  for his people, reversing the famine by providing abundant crops. ¹¹ 

Rut 2:6

2:6 The servant in charge of the harvesters replied, “She’s the young Moabite woman who came back with Naomi from the region of Moab.

Rut 3:2

3:2 Now Boaz, with whose female servants you worked, is our close relative. ¹²  Look, tonight he is winnowing barley at the threshing floor. ¹³ 

Rut 3:4

3:4 When he gets ready to go to sleep, ¹⁴  take careful notice of the place where he lies down. Then go, uncover his legs, ¹⁵  and lie down ¹⁶  beside him. ¹⁷  He will tell ¹⁸  you what you should do.”

Rut 4:15

4:15 He will encourage you and provide for you when you are old, ¹⁹  for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, has given him birth. She ²⁰  is better to you than seven sons!”

Rut 4:17

4:17 The neighbor women named him, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. ²¹  Now he became the father of Jesse – David’s father!

Rut 1:1

A Family Tragedy: Famine and Death

1:1 During the time of the judges ²²  there was a famine in the land of Judah. ²³  So a man from Bethlehem ²⁴  in Judah went to live as a resident foreigner ²⁵  in the region of Moab, along with his wife and two sons. ²⁶ 

[1:3]  ¹ tn Heb “And Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died.” The vav (ו) functions in a consecutive sense (“then”), but the time-frame is not explicitly stated.

[1:18]  ² tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ³ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ⁴ tn Heb “she ceased speaking to her.” This does not imply that Naomi was completely silent toward Ruth. It simply means that Naomi stopped trying to convince her to go back to Moab (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 84-85).

[2:20]  ⁵ tn 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.” In this case the antecedent of אֲשֶׁר (’asher, “who”) would be the immediately preceding “the Lord.” However, this understanding of the construction is not accurate. The antecedent of אֲשֶׁר is Boaz, not the Lord. Elsewhere when אֲשֶׁר follows the blessing formula בָּרוּךְ (barukh, Qal passive participle) + proper name/pronoun, it always introduces the reason the recipient of the blessing deserves a reward. (For this reason one could analyze אֲשֶׁר as a causal conjunction in this construction.) If אֲשֶׁר refers to the Lord here, then this verse, unlike others using the construction, gives no such reason for the recipient being blessed. 2 Sam 2:5, which provides the closest structural parallel to Ruth 2:20, supports this interpretation: בְּרֻכִים אַתֶּם לַיהוָה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם הַחֶסֶד הַזֶּה עִם־אֲדֹנֵיכֶם עִם־שָׁאוּל, “May you [plural] be blessed by the Lord, you who [plural]/because you [plural] have extended such kindness to your master Saul.” Here אֲשֶׁר refers back to the second plural pronoun אַתֶּם (’atem, “you”) in the formula, as the second plural verb עֲשִׂיתֶם(’asitem) after אֲשֶׁר indicates. Though יְהוָה (yÿhvah) is in closer proximity to אֲשֶׁר, it is not the antecedent. The evidence suggests that Ruth 2:20 should be translated and interpreted as follows: “May he [Boaz] be blessed by the Lord, he who [i.e., Boaz]/because he [i.e., Boaz] has not abandoned his loyalty to the living and dead.” Cf. NIV, NCV, CEV, NLT. See B. A. Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2.20 Reconsidered,” BT 36 (1985): 317-27, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 134-36. By caring for the impoverished widows’ physical needs, Boaz had demonstrated loyalty to both the living (the impoverished widows) and the dead (their late husbands). See R. B. Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition, 72.

[2:20]  ⁶ tn Heb “to the living and the dead” (so KJV, NASB).

[2:20]  ⁷ tn The Hebrew term גָּאַל (ga’al) is sometimes translated “redeemer” here (NIV “one of our kinsman-redeemers”; NLT “one of our family redeemers”). In this context Boaz, as a “redeemer,” functions as a guardian of the family interests who has responsibility for caring for the widows of his deceased kinsmen.

[1:6]  ⁸ tn Heb “and she arose, along with her daughters-in-law, and she returned from the region of Moab.”

[1:6]  ⁹ tn Heb “in the region of Moab”; KJV, NRSV “in the country of Moab.” Since this is a repetition of the phrase found earlier in the verse, it has been shortened to “in Moab” in the present translation for stylistic reasons.

[1:6]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “had visited” or “taken note of.” The basic meaning of פָּקַד (paqad) is “observe, examine, take note of” (T. F. Williams, NIDOTTE 3:658), so it sometimes appears with זָכַר (zakhar, “to remember”; Pss 8:4 [MT 5]; 106:4; Jer 14:10; 15:15; Hos 8:13; 9:9) and רָאָה (ra’ah, “to see”; Exod 4:31; Ps 80:14 [MT 15]; NIDOTTE 3:659). It often emphasizes the cause/effect response to what is seen (NIDOTTE 3:659). When God observes people in need, it is glossed “be concerned about, care for, attend to, help” (Gen 21:1; 50:24, 25; Exod 4:31; Ruth 1:6; 1 Sam 2:21; Jer 15:15; Zeph 2:7; Zech 10:3b; NIDOTTE 3:661). When humans are the subject, it sometimes means “to visit” needy people to bestow a gift (Judg 15:1; 1 Sam 17:18). Because it has such a broad range of meanings, its use here has been translated variously: (1) “had visited” (KJV, ASV, NASV, RSV; so BDB 823-24 s.v. פָּקַד); (2) “had considered” (NRSV) and “had taken note of” (TNK; so HALOT 955-57 s.v. פקד); and (3) “had come to the aid of” (NIV), “had blessed” (TEV), and “had given” (CEV; so NIDOTTE 3:657). When God observed the plight of his people, he demonstrated his concern by benevolently giving them food.

[1:6]  ¹¹ tn Heb “by giving to them food.” The translation “reversing the famine and providing abundant crops” attempts to clarify the referent of לֶחֶם (lekhem, “food”) as “crops” and highlights the reversal of the famine that began in v. 1. The infinitive construct לָתֵת לָהֶם לָחֶם (latet lahem lakhem) may denote (1) purpose: “[he visited his people] to give them food” or (2) complementary sense explaining the action of the main verb: “[he visited his people] by giving them food.” The term לֶחֶם (lakhem) here refers to agricultural fertility, the reversal of the famine in v. 1.

[3:2]  ¹² tn Heb “Is not Boaz our close relative, with whose female servants you were?” The idiomatic, negated rhetorical question is equivalent to an affirmation (see Ruth 2:8-9; 3:1) and has thus been translated in the affirmative (so also NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

[3:2]  ¹³ tn Heb “look, he is winnowing the barley threshing floor tonight.”

[3:2]  sn Winnowing the threshed grain involved separating the kernels of grain from the straw and chaff. The grain would be thrown into the air, allowing the wind to separate the kernels (see O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 65-66). The threshing floor itself was usually located outside town in a place where the prevailing west wind could be used to advantage (Borowski, 62-63).

[3:4]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “and let it be when he lies down”; NAB “But when he lies down.”

[3:4]  ¹⁵ tn Some define the noun מַרְגְּלוֹת (margÿlot) as “the place for the feet” (see HALOT 631 s.v.; cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT), but in Dan 10:6 the word refers to the legs, or “region of the legs.” For this reason “legs” or “lower body” is the preferred translation (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 152). Because “foot” is sometimes used euphemistically for the genitals, some feel that Ruth uncovered Boaz’s genitals. For a critique of this view see Bush, 153. While Ruth and Boaz did not actually have a sexual encounter at the threshing floor, there is no doubt that Ruth’s actions are symbolic and constitute a marriage proposal.

[3:4]  ¹⁶ tc The consonantal text (Kethib) has וְשָׁכָבְתִּי (vÿshakhavtiy, “then I will lie down”; Qal perfect 1st person common singular), while the marginal reading (Qere) is וְשָׁכָבְתְּ (vÿshakhavt, “then you lie down”; Qal perfect 2nd person feminine singular) which makes more sense. It is possible that the Kethib preserves an archaic spelling of the 2nd person feminine singular form (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 144-45).

[3:4]  ¹⁷ tn The words “beside him” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons; cf. NLT “lie down there.”

[3:4]  ¹⁸ tn The disjunctive clause structure (vav [ו] + subject + verb) highlights this final word of instruction or signals the conclusion of the instructions.

[4:15]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “and he will become for you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age” (NASB similar).

[4:15]  ²⁰ tn Heb “who, she”; KJV “which is better to thee.”

[4:17]  ²¹ tn The name “Obed” means “one who serves,” perhaps anticipating how he would help Naomi (see v. 15).

[1:1]  ²² tn Heb “in the days of the judging of the judges.” The LXX simply reads “when the judges judged,” and Syriac has “in the days of the judges.” Cf. NASB “in the days when the judges governed (ruled NRSV).”

[1:1]  sn Many interpreters, reading this statement in the light of the Book of Judges which describes a morally corrupt period, assume that the narrator is painting a dark backdrop against which Ruth’s exemplary character and actions will shine even more brightly. However, others read this statement in the light of the book’s concluding epilogue which traces the full significance of the story to the time of David, the chosen king of Judah (4:18-22).

[1:1]  ²³ tn Heb “in the land.” The phrase “of Judah” is supplied in the translation to clarify the referent.

[1:1]  ²⁴ sn The name Bethlehem (בֵּית לֶחֶם, bet lekhem) is from “house, place” (בֵּית) and “bread, food” (לֶחֶם), so the name literally means “House of Bread” or “Place of Food.” Perhaps there is irony here: One would not expect a severe famine in such a location. This would not necessarily indicate that Bethlehem was under divine discipline, but merely that the famine was very severe, explaining the reason for the family’s departure.

[1:1]  map For location see Map5 B1; Map7 E2; Map8 E2; Map10 B4.

[1:1]  ²⁵ tn Or “to live temporarily.” The verb גּוּר (gur, “sojourn”) may refer to (1) temporary dwelling in a location (Deut 18:6; Judg 17:7) or (2) permanent dwelling in a location (Judg 5:17; Ps 33:8). When used of a foreign land, it can refer to (1) temporary dwelling as a visiting foreigner (Gen 12:10; 20:1; 21:34; 2 Kgs 8:1-2; Jer 44:14) or (2) permanent dwelling as a resident foreigner (Gen 47:4; Exod 6:4; Num 15:14; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 4:3; Jer 49:18,33; 50:40; Ezek 47:22-23). Although Naomi eventually returned to Judah, there is some ambiguity whether or not Elimelech intended the move to make them permanent resident foreigners. Cf. NASB “to sojourn” and NIV “to live for a while,” both of which imply the move was temporary, while “to live” (NCV, NRSV, NLT) is more neutral about the permanence of the relocation.

[1:1]  sn Some interpreters view Elimelech’s departure from Judah to sojourn in Moab as lack of faith in the covenant God of Israel to provide for his family’s needs in the land of promise; therefore his death is consequently viewed as divine judgment. Others note that God never prohibited his people from seeking food in a foreign land during times of famine but actually sent his people to a foreign land during a famine in Canaan on at least one occasion as an act of deliverance (Gen 37-50). In this case, Elimelech’s sojourn to Moab was an understandable act by a man concerned for the survival of his family, perhaps even under divine approval, so their death in Moab was simply a tragedy, a bad thing that happened to a godly person.

[1:1]  ²⁶ tn Heb “he and his wife and his two sons.” The LXX omits “two.”