A Satisfying End to a Much-Needed Feel-Good Story in Ruth 3 and 4
- mww
- 10 minutes ago
- 20 min read
Sometimes nice guys finish first.
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Ruth 3-4
This is just a wonderful story filled with feel-good elements, incredible wisdom, and a lot of joy. Digging into the cultural and linguistic background might make these things hit even harder, but anyone can pick up this story and appreciate what happened. As Christians, we see how God used these events to point us toward Jesus.
Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you without a family redeemer today. (4:14)
When We Studied This Passage in 2017
I'm somewhat disappointed this Lifeway is doing the exact same lesson from the 2017 cycle. There are plenty of great verses in this book. In any event, you have my notes from then:
Things covered:
Marriage proposals
"Nice guys finish last"
An overview of the book
"Kinsman-redeemer"
What happened in the tent?
Levirate marriage
Getting Started: Things to Think About
When You Realized You Wanted to Marry Your Spouse
Obviously, this topic won't work in every group, but if you have married folk, I have a twist on a common icebreaker question -- not the usual "when did you first meet your spouse?" but "when did you realize you wanted to marry your spouse?"
Anecdotally, I don't think a lot of married people remember the exact moment (it just sort of happened), so this could be a fun challenge. (To be sure, it's okay if you don't remember the exact moment; most people I know don't remember the exact moment they became a Christian.)
For me, it was sometime during the week after our first date. I wouldn't say that "sparks flew" in the rom-com sense, but I was so deeply enamored in a way I had never experienced. And I really wanted to know how a second date would go. (It went well.)
For good literary reasons, the Bible doesn't go into the thought-life of Ruth and Boaz, but here's how I interpret their story -- Ruth goes into this week's passage with the understanding that Boaz would make a wise "marriage target" (this goes back to the reputation topic we addressed last week), and somewhere in that preparation she realizes that she wants to marry him. Conversely, Boaz had probably not thought of Ruth in this way (except perhaps that she was the kind of woman he would marry); he was a content bachelor. But as soon as Ruth opened that door, he realized very quickly that he wanted to marry her.
Related Idea: Your First Date with Your Spouse
It's weird to think of this week's event as Ruth and Boaz's "first date", but that's kinda what it is. It might be sexually charged, but in a pure, non-sexual way (much more on this below). So, tell some first date stories! This is always a fun topic. And if you have unmarried group members, perhaps ask about their parents' first date.
I took Shelly to the Crown Uptown Dinner Theater in mid-March of 1999. (Yes, we got married in July of 1999.) I don't remember what they performed (according to Google, it was "A Grand Night for Singing", but that doesn't sound right), and I don't remember what we ate. But I remember her formal dress, and I remember that we had extremely different childhoods. And that I wanted to take her on another date asap (which became a movie date to "The Other Sister" with dinner at Chili's (?) after.)
How about you?
Modern Marriage Proposals
In this week's passage, it really looks like Ruth proposed to Boaz (and in a strange way). I brought up this topic idea in 2017, and a lot has happened since then. Social media did a number on proposals, so much so that some proposals seem more about the social media approval than the actual proposal of, you know, marriage. But it seems that some of those trends have burned out by 2026.
There's a lot of contradictory "statistics" online, so I don't know what to believe, but it seems that more people today now prefer the private, intimate marriage proposal.
What has been the experience of your social circles? What is considered a "normal" proposal to you?
We don't know anything about Boaz's personal history, though it seems that he is a lifelong bachelor. All that to say that even with how different the world (and marriage) was then, this still must have been an exciting and terrifying event for Boaz and Ruth.
The Joy of a Grandchild
This will not work in every group :). At the end of this story, we see Naomi's joy in her grandson. It's a beautiful moment. If this applies to your group, ask them what that moment was like the first time they held their grandchild.
Incidentally, my grandmother's name was Naomi, and I was her first grandchild. It has absolutely no relevance to anything, but it makes me happy to say.
This Week's Quasi-Big Idea: The State of Dating
This topic is not entirely relevant to understanding this week's passage, but I think it's important for Christians to understand; so, I'm offering this as a topic for you to think about but not necessarily to talk about in your group.
Let me again be clear on this: we don't know the personal history of Boaz, and we don't know anybody's ages. This is entirely speculation.
It seems to me that Ruth is in her mid- to upper 20s and Boaz is in his mid-40s (and Naomi is somewhere around 50). Ruth is, of course, a widow. It does not seem that Boaz has been married. It would have been rare for someone his age to be a bachelor (in that day and place), but he seems content.
In the United States, year-end 2025 statistics (Census Bureau Releases New Estimates on America’s Families and Living Arrangements) indicate that fewer than half of Americans are getting married, and when they do, they're much older than in previous generations (30 for men, 28 for women). But as much as 80% of Gen Z still desires to be married (New Barna Data on Marriage and Divorce Trends).
But here's the topic I want to make you aware of. In 2017, when we studied this passage last time, the culture was deep in its Tinder and Hinge era, and there were all kinds of concerns about the state of dating and what young people were experiencing. I had that in the background of my thoughts when talking about this week's passage (which is the same passage we studied in 2017).
What a difference a decade makes.
A lot of young people are burned out on dating apps (Online Dating Statistics, Trends & Insights – Forbes Health). And most importantly, only 1 in 3 young people are actively dating. (State of Our Unions 2026: The Dating Recession | Institute for Family Studies).
The IFS calls this era "The Dating Recession". Some key findings from their surveys:
young adults lack confidence in their dating skills;
young adults are steering away from the "hookup culture" to one more focused on serious emotional connection;
young adults don't think they can afford to date seriously;
"dating resilience" is very low right now.
Those are big deal statistics, and that "State of Our Unions" article is very interesting (very interesting). My kids are 25 and 21 (and neither is actively dating), so I read all of these statistics through their experiences.
Let me be clear: marriage and family are incredibly important -- children are the future, as they say -- but the Bible is also clear that not everyone will get married, and not everyone will have children. To me, this week's passage reinforces the need for Christians to have a robust relationship with God and trust His plan and timing.
Did Boaz want to get married before? Did Boaz have awkward courtships before? We don't know any of that. But we know that at this moment, probably when he wasn't looking for it, God changed his life. There is no "right age" for dating or marriage, but there is God's timing, and God's timing is always "right".
This Week's Actual Big Idea: The Kinsman-Redeemer
The CSB uses the phrase "family redeemer", but I learned it as "kinsman-redeemer", so that's how I'll continue to say it. Sorry not sorry.
If you pay attention to home ownership, property ownership, and business ownership statistics (no? just me?) you know that "big money" (often Private Equity) is scooping up all kinds of properties and entities. Sometimes the previous owners simply can't pass up an offer too good to refuse. Sometimes the previous owners need money fast (the Lakers, anyone?).
This is nothing new. Depressing stories about losing the family land date back thousands of years.
But let's remember ancient Israel. God gave each tribe an allotment of land. What happens when some members of a tribe go into debt and have to sell their family land to pay it off, and the buyers belong to another tribe? Now all of a sudden the tribal holdings no longer match their allotments. It's not hard to imagine an Israel in which, after generations, entire tribes no longer own their own lands.
That's why God commanded the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25) every 50 years. Here's the summary from the Holman Bible Dictionary: "During this year of joy and liberation the law stipulated three respects in which the land and people were to be sanctified: (1) It was to be a time of rest for the soil as well as people (Lev 25:11). The unattended growth of the field was for the poor to glean and for the beasts of the field (Exod 23:11). (2) All land was to revert to the original owner (Lef 25:10-34; 27:16-24). The original distribution of land was to remain intact. All property that the original owner had been obligated to sell (and had not yet been redeemed) was to revert (without payment) to the original owner or his lawful heirs. (3) Every Israelite who had sold himself -- either to his fellow countryman or to a foreigner settled in the land -- because of poverty and remained unredeemed was to be freed along with his children (Lev 25:39-46)."
What I want you to notice in that definition is the phrase "not yet been redeemed". In Israel, land ownership was not considered permanent. (And no, I don't want to hear any comparisons with how communist China handles ownership.) We can think of it as a lease that is up every 50 years, regardless of when you bought in.
If that sounds strange, let's let God explain how it was supposed to work:
Lev 25:23 The land is not to be permanently sold because it is mine, and you are only aliens and temporary residents on my land. 24 You are to allow the redemption of any land you occupy. 25 If your brother becomes destitute and sells part of his property, his nearest relative may come and redeem what his brother has sold. 26 If a man has no family redeemer, but he prospers and obtains enough to redeem his land, 27 he may calculate the years since its sale, repay the balance to the man he sold it to, and return to his property. 28 But if he cannot obtain enough to repay him, what he sold will remain in the possession of its purchaser until the Year of Jubilee. It is to be released at the Jubilee, so that he may return to his property.
The selling price of the land was to take into account the next Jubilee (more specifically, the number of harvests until land ownership reverted).
But further -- and this is what matters for this week's passage -- God required that all land could be "bought back" by the original owner's family or someone on his behalf. Assuming they were offered a fair price, the person who bought the land could not refuse the original owner/family buying the land back ("redeeming" it).
Let's apply this to the book of Ruth. Elimelech, of the tribe of Judah, left Bethlehem with his wife and sons for Moab, where they stayed for a decade (and where he died). Sometime before the events of the book, his land was bought by somebody else. We know that there would be a Jubilee within 50 years, and the land would revert to Elimelech's clan (though not necessarily to Naomi! . . . if she were still alive, that is), but that would help Naomi in no way. She needed relief and security asap.
Elimelech had relatives who, if they had the money, could buy ("redeem") his land and give it to Naomi (or at least let Naomi live on the land and keep the profits from the harvest). I hope you realize that's actually a big ask. It would be an incredibly generous move on the part of the kinsman-redeemer.
Boaz was in line to do this, but he was not first in line. Someone else had family priority.
Boaz vs. Mr. So-and-So
I'm so sad we skip this part of the book. I'll just bring it to your attention anyway. All of the family members are named in chapter 4 . . . except one -- the first-in-line kinsman-redeemer. We never learn his name. Why? Because he chose not to act as kinsman-redeemer.
Here's a more literal reading of the Hebrew in Ruth 4:1:
Now Boaz went to the town gate and sat there. Look, the redeemer was passing by of whom Boaz had spoken. "Turn aside and sit here, certain one." And he turned aside and sat down.
Boaz almost certainly called the man by name. But Boaz didn't write the book! The author of Ruth intentionally makes that man an anonymous footnote in a beautiful love story. The English language demands some kind of identifier. The CSB just removes the reference but says in a footnote that it could be translated "Mr. So-and-so". I strongly prefer the use of "Mr. So-and-so" -- it's intentional by the author of Ruth. He's identified without being named. He did nothing memorable, so we are given nothing to remember him by. Boaz is the hero here.
What Transaction Took Place?
Boaz tells the first-in-line kinsman-redeemer that Naomi is selling the rights to Elimelech's land. That doesn't jive with what I said earlier, that Elimelech had at some point in time already sold the land. Here's what I think (and don't worry, I'm not alone in this) -- Elimelech had indeed sold the land already, but Naomi was unable to buy the land back herself, and since she had no sons, she would lose all claim on the land with her death. Therefore, she was selling the "right" to redeem the land to her kinsman-redeemer.
(Is this how personal seat licenses work?)
Mr. So-and-so immediately jumped at that offer. I'm sure he was thinking that once Naomi died, and Naomi had no sons, the land would be his "free and clear". BUT. Everybody in town knew about Ruth, which means that they also suspected that Ruth would be the candidate for a Levirate marriage (see below) on Naomi's behalf. Mr. So-and-so, in his excitement to increase his personal holdings, forgot about that. Boaz had given him the opportunity to bow out gracefully, but now he has to embarrass the man in front of the village elders. It's difficult to see exactly how an offspring with Ruth would ruin his own inheritance (did he worry about having too many sons with her?); I think he just didn't want to marry someone from Moab. This might have just been a clever move on Boaz's part -- he spoke into existence that Ruth would be the one to continue Naomi's (Elimelech's) line. Making this public and making the man consider the two things as a single deal made Mr. So-and-so bow out, leaving Boaz as the new first-in-line kinsman-redeemer, which he exercised immediately and publicly.
Hang on. Levirate Marriage? What Else Haven't You Told Me?
Sorry. One last Jewish tidbit. You should remember this concept from reading the Gospels:
Matt 22:23 That same day some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came up to him and questioned him: 24 “Teacher, Moses said, if a man dies, having no children, his brother is to marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.
They were quoting Leviticus 25:5. This is "Levirate marriage" -- how the people were to keep the family land in the family, so to speak. The concept should make sense, even if you're squeamish about it. Family land is to be passed down from generation to generation. So, what happens where there are no kids? In modern America, we have all kinds of legal mechanisms by which this sort of thing can be worked out. Not so much in the ancient world. Bloodlines -- determined through the man -- were the way of demonstrating ownership. A man who lost his wife could just take another wife; he maintained the bloodline in himself. But a wife who lost her husband needed to marry someone in that family. Like I said, this makes a lot of people squeamish.
Now we finally see why Naomi had made such a big deal of being past childbearing age. She would not be able to perform the Levirate duties, which meant that the Levirate marriage would actually be with her daughter-in-law (who wasn't even Jewish!). The bloodline would now be through Boaz. But if it were accepted that Ruth could maintain the bloodline on Naomi's behalf, and if Boaz married Ruth and had children by her, everything would turn out neat and tidy.
You might ask, "But what about Boaz's own children? What would have happened to his property when he died if he had no children?" Great observation. Eventually, Boaz was going to have to take a wife and have children. This is the risk of being an older bachelor -- you might die before fully raising your child to take over the family business. But don't worry too much about that; Boaz was very shrewd. I'm sure he had this worked out. And he sure jumped in with both feet when he saw what was going on with Ruth and Naomi. I think he had thought about all of these possibilities.
Boaz was selfless, honorable, kind, and conscientious. It's what we should all aspire to. But in a day of moral anarchy, that makes Boaz a superstar. We are right to think of him as a hero of the faith.
Part 1: Ruth's Bold Move (Ruth 3:8-10)
8 At midnight, Boaz was startled, turned over, and there lying at his feet was a woman! 9 So he asked, “Who are you?” “I am Ruth, your servant,” she replied. “Take me under your wing, for you are a family redeemer.” 10 Then he said, “May the Lord bless you, my daughter. You have shown more kindness now than before, because you have not pursued younger men, whether rich or poor.
Yikes! We're ten minutes into this post, and I haven't actually given you any context yet! Blessedly, the story is easy to follow, and you have my previous post on this passage if I don't answer your questions here.
Naomi has gone into matchmaker mode, and it's precious. She sees in Boaz an honorable man who could care for Ruth (and hopefully also her). And Ruth trusts Naomi. Ruth was even more forward than Naomi counseled, which is why I call this section "Ruth's bold move".
Ruth probably didn't have much of a wardrobe. [Aside: I just saw the news that Dolly Parton died; she told many stories of an impoverished upbringing, including her coat of many colors that her mama made for her.] But a smelly, dirty servant-girl would not be much of a marriage-match for a respected landowner like Boaz. (Most commentaries also note that this would indicate that her time of mourning was over and she considered herself able to be remarried.) So, "clean up quickly! you've got a man to make an impression on!"
Note that Naomi did not tell Ruth to say the things Ruth said -- that was Ruth being bold.
Even in the safest of times, harvest season was rife with bandits -- literal sacks of grain sitting around in the open -- and this was not the safest of times in Israel. But Boaz was so tired that he didn't notice an intruder.
It's common for modern readers to read sexual innuendos into this event (e.g., "feet" as an innuendo for "genitals"). That really doesn't make any sense. The author is holding up both Ruth and Boaz as paragons of virtue. He uses a euphemism for a sexual encounter after they get married. Trying to make this night sexual is our modern hookup culture reading modern "values" into the story. The presence of possible sexual tension is a temptation to sin -- it is not a sin itself.
So if this isn't anything sexual, what's going on? Boringly, I think it just means what the author wrote. The key is that Ruth lies at Boaz's feet -- a symbol of complete submission. Uncovering Boaz's feet might be a part of the symbol or, more likely, will just wake the guy up faster and in less of a start! You probably don't want to startle a guy out of sleep when he's supposed to be protecting his harvest, right?
Ruth has earlier called herself Boaz's slave/servant in 2:13. Here, she uses a different term for servant, a more elevated one. It's still a humble position, but not so humble as to be unworthy of marriage.
"Take me under your wing" sounds like "mentorship" in modern English. The Hebrew literally means "spread your wing over your servant". Later in the Bible, we see "spread your skirt over" as a symbol of protection and marriage between God and Israel (Ezekiel 16), so it's possible (likely) that Ruth is intending this as a request for marriage. Very bold. But what does she have to lose?
I talked about "family redeemer/kinsman-redeemer" above.
Boaz recognizes this request for what it is but is still honored and flattered by it. The "former kindness" Boaz is talking about was how Ruth stayed with and cared for Naomi. This "new kindness" is how she will continue to care for Naomi, but now as a full member of Naomi's clan where Ruth can provide Naomi a safe home and a future family -- and do it with Boaz. Now Boaz can be a part of this redemptive cycle.
Boaz notes that Ruth could have abandoned her place with Naomi and found a rich, young, eligible bachelor, but she maintained her commitment to Naomi, which led her to Boaz, a kinsman-redeemer.
Part 2: Boaz's Noble Response (Ruth 3:11-13)
11 Now don’t be afraid, my daughter. I will do for you whatever you say, since all the people in my town know that you are a woman of noble character. 12 Yes, it is true that I am a family redeemer, but there is a redeemer closer than I am. 13 Stay here tonight, and in the morning, if he wants to redeem you, that’s good. Let him redeem you. But if he doesn’t want to redeem you, as the Lord lives, I will. Now lie down until morning.”
I think it's extremely clear that nothing sexual or untoward happened on this night.
Boaz understood what Naomi had sent Ruth to do, and he was willing to go along with this plan. This is something he had already thought about -- he had done his research into the family lines, and he knew that Elimelech had a closer living relative.
Aside: More CGP Grey!
I don't know what the rules were for determining the order of "close" family. but this does give me a great excuse to show this wonderful short video that tries to explain how family relationships are named. I've watched it many times, and I still don't entirely get it.
Whatever family tree mechanism they used, there was a "closer" relative to Elimelech than Boaz.
The Lifeway material plays up Boaz's integrity in acknowledging this (and that's fair), but the "degrees of separation" weren't entirely a secret. Boaz knew the other guy well enough to know he would raise a stink if he thought he was left out of a money-making opportunity. This was the prudent thing for Boaz to do. "Ask forgiveness not permission" is not often a wise strategy for major life choices.
I pointed this out above, and it's worth hammering -- Boaz's chief concern is Ruth's well-being. Sure, she might not be as "happy" with Mr. So-and-so (and remember that "marrying for love" wasn't really a thing in those days), but she would be cared for and secure. That's noble.
Some readers might be put off by the phrasing "if he redeems you", as if the guy is buying Ruth. The language is in keeping with what's going on. You should understand this to mean "if he fulfills his responsibility as kinsman-redeemer to you (which to Boaz means marrying Ruth)".
Boaz would take the rest of the evening to make his plan, which he knew had the greatest chance of success if he acted quickly.
What Happens Next
Lifeway skips the actual climax of the narrative to focus on the happy ending. That's fine. It's a quick read. I think I've explained the cultural to-do well enough.
Why did Boaz tell Ruth to keep her visit a secret? I think it's as simple as gossip. Anything that would tarnish Ruth's reputation would make her future more complicated. I also wonder if Boaz worried about accusations of "collusion" from Mr. So-and-so.
The act of sending Ruth home with grain was his signal to Naomi that he had accepted the proposition. He knew that Naomi would know what to do next -- namely, keep Ruth out of sight until everything was worked out.
There is so much wisdom in those decisions. You could probably do an entire lesson just on Boaz's wisdom and how we could use it today.
Finally, remember that when Boaz says, "I am buying the land from Naomi", he means "I am buying the rights to the land from Naomi's clan until the Year of Jubilee -- which he will then pay to whomever Elimelech had already sold the land to. But since Boaz is also marrying Ruth and hoping to produce an heir that would legally qualify as Naomi's grandson, he is also keeping the land in the family continuously. There would be no change of ownership at the Jubilee.
Part 3: The Happy Ending (Ruth 4:13-17)
13 Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. He slept with her, and the Lord granted conception to her, and she gave birth to a son. 14 The women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you without a family redeemer today. May his name become well known in Israel. 15 He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. Indeed, your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” 16 Naomi took the child, placed him on her lap, and became a mother to him. 17 The neighbor women said, “A son has been born to Naomi,” and they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
And then we have the kicker -- Ruth and Boaz were King David's great-grandparents! This is God's way of highlighting the world-wide nature of His mission, seeing that this is immortalized into Jesus' lineage.
I want to be clear: Ruth and Boaz could have had no children at all, and that wouldn't change the beauty of this story -- two people trying to be a beacon of hope and faithfulness in a world that was falling apart around them.
I particularly appreciate how the attention turns to Naomi. Yes, Ruth, but. Naomi went through a very dark time, but she also emerges as one of the heroes of this story, and God gave her comfort and joy at the end of it.
Ruth, the foreign daughter-in-law, turned out to be a better family member than "seven sons" (the sign of a "complete" family). Naomi became what we would today call a "nanny". The name "Obed" means "one who serves", which became an anticipation of Naomi's later years. She came back to Bethlehem destitute and expecting to die alone, but now she has a family and a future and a grandson who will care for her.
Especially in that day, things did not end well for many in Israel, so it gives all of us as readers just a little relief to see things work out for people we have rooted for.
I think you should always pray for things to "turn out well" for the people in your life. But as Christians, we need to always remember that things ultimately "turn out perfect" for us on the other side of our earthly death. There is no greater gift that God could give us, and that gift comes through Jesus Christ, whom Matthew connects directly with this story.
Lifeway recommends explaining the parallels between "Boaz as redeemer" and "Jesus as redeemer". I'm less convinced about this idea because we don't fully understand exactly what Boaz did (and we know what Jesus did), but I'm all for every talk about salvation in Jesus.
And this is it for Joshua/Judges/Ruth! Find out what your group learned. See if they can put these three books into three sentences of why they're in the Bible (and why every Christian should care about them).
Next week: Romans!
Closing Thoughts: Boaz and God's Worldwide Mission.
The author of Ruth ends with this list:
18 Now these are the family records of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, 19 Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, 20 Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, 21 Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, 22 Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.
If those names ring any bells, it's because Matthew starts his Gospel with this list. But do you notice any differences? --
Matt 1:5 Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab, Boaz fathered Obed by Ruth, Obed fathered Jesse, 6 and Jesse fathered King David.
Matthew goes out of his way to highlight Rahab and Ruth, two people we studied this quarter.
We just studied that hundreds of years passed during the time of the judges -- thus separating the stories of Rahab and Ruth. Well, also remember that Matthew "telescoped" the genealogies to make his theological point (the word for "fathered" also means "was an ancestor of"). We can assume that the author of Ruth did the same thing. Matthew's point is that the two most prominent non-Jewish women of this era mentioned in the Bible are actually in the lineage of the Son of God.
Another tidbit: Nashon was Aaron's brother-in-law and led the tribe of Judah into prominence during the exodus (Num 2). The author of Ruth was noting that David came directly from the line of important leaders in this tribe. We now see this as pointing directly to Jesus.
Comments