Ruth 3:1 - Meaning and Application

Naomi’s care for her daughter-in-law’s future is clearly praiseworthy, and the story records it for our example. Naomi had no plan to marry again herself (Ruth 1:12). But while the older woman had accepted a lifelong widowhood, she did not want Ruth, who was still young, to remain in it as well. Age should not make itself a rule for youth.

Instead, Naomi was working to help Ruth marry well. Her wisdom planned for Ruth what Ruth’s modesty kept her from planning for herself (Ruth 3:1). She did this out of duty to the dead, to preserve the family line and keep the name from dying out. She also did it out of kindness and gratitude to Ruth, who had treated her with such care and respect. Naomi speaks of Ruth as her own daughter and asks, in effect, whether she should not seek a settled married life for her, so that things may go well with her.

A married life is meant to be a place of rest for the young. In it, restless affections are settled, and the heart should come to peace. The house of a good husband should be a place of rest, as Ruth had already suggested in Ruth 1:9. People who are still unsettled after marriage are truly restless. What should be desired in marriage is that it will be for our good, and that means choosing well. Otherwise, marriage can become a source of deep trouble instead of rest. Parents, when arranging marriage for their children, must keep this aim in view. And above all, what is best for us is what is best for our souls.

It is also the duty of parents to seek this kind of rest for their children and to do what is proper, in due time, to help them toward it. The more dutiful and respectful children are, the more reason parents have to care for their good, even when it is harder to spare them. Naomi’s plan was aimed at Ruth’s welfare, but the way she carried it out was unusual and does raise concern.

If there was anything wrong in the method, the responsibility would lie with Naomi, who urged Ruth to act and who knew, or should have known, Israel’s laws and customs better than Ruth did. It was true that Boaz, as a close relative of the dead man, and likely the nearest living kinsman, was bound by God’s law to marry Mahlon’s widow, Mahlon being Elimelech’s oldest son who had died childless (Ruth 3:2). This reminds us that Christ, by taking our nature, is our close relative too. He is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.

It was also a fitting time to remind Boaz of this duty. By then he had come to know Ruth well through her faithful work in his fields during the whole harvest, and the harvest was now over. He had already shown her kindness in smaller ways, which gave Naomi reason to hope he would not act harshly or unfairly in a matter so important. Naomi also thought the winnowing feast at the threshing floor was the right occasion. It marked the completion of the harvest, and Boaz was treating his workers generously, as a kind master should. Like Nabal and Absalom at their sheep-shearings, Boaz held a feast at the time of winnowing.

Naomi seems to have thought Ruth was the proper person to make the appeal herself. That may even have been the custom in that land, since the law in Deuteronomy 25:7-9 gives the woman a role in such a case. So Naomi told Ruth to wash, anoint herself, and put on her clothes, but not to dress in a way meant to attract attention (Ruth 3:3). She was to go down to the threshing floor, probably where she had been invited to eat, but she was not to make her purpose known. Since she was already well known among Boaz’s workers, there was no need to introduce herself. She was to wait until the company had gone and Boaz was alone. In that setting, she could speak to him more easily than at his house.

So far, this seems understandable. But her lying down at his feet while he slept in the night had such an appearance of evil that it is hard to defend. It came close to wrongdoing and could have led to it. Many interpreters think it cannot be justified, including the able Mr. Poole. We must not do evil so that good may come. It is dangerous to bring spark and tinder together, because a little fire can start a great blaze. No one should treat this as a model, because our laws and our customs are not the same as they were then.

Still, it is fair to make the best judgment possible. If Boaz was indeed the nearest kinsman, then in God’s sight Ruth was already his wife, as people sometimes say, and only a small ceremony was needed to complete the marriage. Naomi did not mean Ruth to approach him in any other way. She knew Boaz was not only an older man, but also a serious, sober, virtuous, and godly man who feared God. She knew Ruth was modest, chaste, and inclined to stay at home (Titus 2:5). Israel had once been led into sin by the daughters of Moab (Numbers 25:1), but this Moabite woman was nothing like them.

Naomi herself meant nothing dishonest or shameful, and her charity, which believes and hopes the best, kept her from suspecting either Boaz or Ruth of anything but honorable intentions. If the action would have seemed indecent by later standards, then it still does not follow that Naomi must have lacked wisdom or virtue. If she had been so lacking, she would also have been too unwise to risk ruining the match and turning away so grave and good a man as Boaz. We must therefore conclude that it did not appear as improper then as it does to us now.

Naomi left Ruth to Boaz for further direction. After Ruth had made her claim, Boaz, who knew the law better, would tell her what to do next. So we must lay ourselves at the feet of our Redeemer, ready to receive our sentence from him. “Lord, what do you want me to do?” (Acts 9:6). And we may be sure that if Ruth had thought Naomi’s advice was wrong, she was too wise and too virtuous to have replied, “I will do everything you say” (Ruth 3:5).

In this way, the younger should submit to the older and follow their serious, wise counsel, when there is nothing sound to say against it.