Why is the book of Ruth in the canon?¹ This seemingly straightforward question proves surprisingly complex. Is it a polemical writing, to justify the presence of a Moabite in David’s genealogy?² Is it to encourage faithfulness to the law, especially as it pertains to levirate marriage?³ Does it function as a polemic against the negative assessment of inter-marriage with foreigners in Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13)?⁴ Or, less cynical, is its purpose to promote kindness in Israel?⁵ Recently, Peter Lau has argued that all these proposals ultimately fall short in capturing the multi-faceted purpose of the book. The primary purpose, according to Lau, is rather “to present God’s providence and kindness in preserving the family that produced King David”—a kindness that should inspire God’s people to imitation.⁶  Lau seems closest to the mark here, especially considering the cynical alternatives.⁷

But what if there is a more fundamental reason for the composition of this book—one that elevates its canonical significance? What if the author was not merely interested in retelling this remarkable family history, but has recognized providential, prophetic patterns in it? Its placement among the writings, rather than the former prophets, at least invites such a consideration. Indeed, what if the purpose of Ruth is similar to books like Psalms and Chronicles; its aim to re-tell (or re-sing!)⁸ Israel’s history in anticipation of the future?⁹ This is what this paper will argue: that through various thematic and textual allusions, the author of Ruth presents the narrative as a typological microcosm of Yahweh’s redemptive purposes for Israel (and the nations) as anticipated in the Pentateuch and carried forward in the Prophets.¹⁰ The author has recognized the promise-shaped patterns in David’s family history and has retold the story in such a way as to highlight the prophetic nature of the narrative.¹¹

To make this case, I will survey the narrative of Ruth, laying out its structure while highlighting biblical theological observations most pertinent to the argument of this paper. First, I will present my understanding of the macro-structure of Ruth. Then, I examine the introduction of the book (Ruth 1:1–7) in detail, as it sets the stage for the entire narrative and provides crucial clues for a typological understanding of the book. After this, I will give an overview of the rest of the narrative, highlighting the author’s moves that are most significant for my argument. Finally, I will summarize and synthesize the evidence and present Ruth’s typology of redemption, with Elimelech’s family starring as Israel, Naomi figuring as the role of remnant, Ruth as the gentile nations and Boaz/Obed as typological pre-figurations of the future redeemer from David’s line.

The Macro-Structure of Ruth

As many have observed, the book of Ruth is an elaborate chiasm, composed of smaller chiastic units.¹² I am in general agreement with what others have seen, but my proposal has slight variations due to what I see as the proper boundaries of micro-units. The interpretive reasons for labeling the sections the way I did will become apparent in the remainder of this paper. The chapter-level and micro-level chiastic structures will be presented as well. For now, consider the chiastic symmetry of the book on macro-level:

In this chiastic shape, chapters 1 and 4, and 2 and 3 mirror one another. On a textual level, many parallels and contrasts confirm this understanding.¹³ Consider the following in chapters 1 and 4: The prologue recounts the end of a line of descent (1:1–7), whereas the epilogue presents a ‘beginning’ or restoration of such a line (4:18–22). The ten years of sojourn in Moab (1:4) are neatly mirrored by the ten generations from Perez to David (4:18–22). In 1:8–18, a key word is ‘return’ (שׁוב, in qal; 1:8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22). This term occurs twice, however, in the hiphil; negatively in 1:21, where Naomi says Yahweh ‘returned’ her empty to Bethlehem, and positively in 4:15, where the women say that Obed will be a ‘restorer’ or ‘reviver’ of life for Naomi.¹⁴ In Ruth 1, Orpah is initially willing to return with Naomi, but then chooses not to proceed. In Ruth 4, the other redeemer is first willing to redeem Ruth but then declines the offer. The episodes at the town gate mirror one another (1:19–22; 4:1–12),¹⁵ and Naomi’s request of the women to call her ‘Mara’ (1:20), mirrors the women who call her newborn grandson ‘Obed’ (4:17). As I will argue below, Naomi’s words while entering Bethlehem should be understood as an act of faithlessness towards Yahweh and Ruth.¹⁶ This stands across from the faithfulness of Boaz in redeeming Ruth. 

Balancing the central section of Ruth are chapter 2 and 3. The progression of both scenes are similar: Ruth ‘pre-briefs’ with Naomi (2:1–3; 3:1–5), is on the field with Boaz (2:4–17; 3:6–14), then de-briefs with Naomi after returning with much food (2:18–23; 3:15–18). Both scenes center around a faithful spreading of wings, first of Yahweh (2:11–12), then of Boaz (3:9–13).¹⁷ There are also contrasts: the first field-scene occurs by day, the second by night; the first is publicly known, the second is hidden. And as I will argue below, Ruth’s good plan (2:1–3), stands across Naomi’s evil plan (3:1–5). I will now consider how the author of this book, through the introductory section, has managed to invite readers to consider how this story may serve as a typological microcosm of Yahweh’s redemptive dealings with Israel.

Setting the Stage: A Remnant Returns from Exile

The first section of Ruth proves crucial in understanding the narrative direction of the book, setting the stage not just for the book itself, but for its biblical theological trajectory. It evidences a chiastic arrangement:¹⁸

The first section of the book is bracketed by references to land (ארץ), Judah, and the fields of Moab. In 1:1 a family (with two sons) leaves the house of bread (לֶחֶם) because of famine, and in 1:6–7 only the woman (with two daughters-in-law) returns after hearing that Yahweh provided bread (לֶחֶם). Next, 1:2–1:3 and 1:4b–5 describes the sojourn in Moab, and the tragedies that befall the family there. Father and sons die and only the mother remains. At the center, the two Moabite daughters-in-law are introduced—most notably the main character of the book, Ruth.

A pressing question that arises out of this first unit is one of theodicy: What should we make of all this suffering? Should we attribute these tragic deaths to misfortune—Job-esque, perhaps? Some think so.¹⁹ Others see Elimelech’s act to move his family over to Moab as an act of unbelief, his death appearing to reflect retributive judgment.²⁰ This suggestion, however, is firmly rejected by commentators like Frederic Bush, who asserts,

There is not the faintest suggestion, for example, that there is any opprobrium to be attached to the move to Moab or that the famine is Israel’s punishment for her sin. Especially there is not the slightest hint that the tragic deaths of Elimelech and his sons in any way resulted from their having forsaken their people in a time of trouble or their having moved to Moab where the sons married Moabite women.²¹

It seems to me, however, that if we simply assume that the author of Ruth operates within a biblical worldview—that is, he is someone who knows the Scriptures and meditates on the Torah day and night—that his evaluation of the matter is actually quite clear. Or better yet, I propose that this author, by alluding to earlier Scripture, deftly invites readers to ponder, not how he evaluates the situation, but how Yahweh does. Reading the opening paragraph this way yields a straightforward conclusion: The tragedies described are covenant curses for disobedience.

The first indication of such a covenantal reading is found in the very first words of the book. The author indicates that these tragic events happened in the days when the judges ruled in Israel (1:1). This is significant, since these days were marked by a continual back and forth between blessing and curse on the basis of the conditions described in Deuteronomy 27–33.²² Moreover, after alluding explicitly to those days, the very first line of the book continues, “and there was famine in the land” (Ruth 1:1). According to Torah, famine in Israel is a clear mark of God’s curse.²³ Putting these two realities together are a sure indication that these events occur at a time of disobedience in Israel that has led to the covenant curses being enacted.²⁴ Faithful Israelites like the author, aware of God’s law and Israel’s history, understand that famines in the days of the judges are a sure sign of God’s curse.

The author next describes a man from Bethlehem who leaves Israel to sojourn in the fields of Moab. Although some have argued this decision to be out of necessity,²⁵ supposedly presented without the slightest hint of moral fault,²⁶ there are strong indications that the author of Ruth disagrees.²⁷ Consider the following. First, as argued above, the famine should be understood as a sign of God’s covenant curse upon Israel. What faithful Israelites should do in such situations is not leave the promised land—the land of blessing and of God’s presence—but to call their fellow countryman to repentance and plead with God for mercy (e.g. Deut. 4:29–31; 30:1–3). 

Second, the Pentateuch’s evaluation of Moab is decidedly negative—they are quintessentially seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). They are a people born out of incest (Gen. 19:30–38), they attempt to ‘curse’ Israel (Num. 22:1–6),²⁸ they seduced Israel into sexual immorality and idolatry (Num. 25) and for this reason, they were not to “enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever” (Deut. 23:3–5, ESV). Moreover, “they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt” (Deut. 23:3, ESV). Looking for food in Moab as an Israelite is ironically and naively wrong, let alone marrying their women.²⁹ Torah could not be clearer on this point: “You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.” (Deut. 23:6, ESV). This is not a country where a faithful Israelite should turn for refuge. 

Third, the textual allusions woven into this description by the author are decidedly negative. The phrase “and there was famine in the land” (וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ) in combination with sojourning (גוּר) only occur twice in the entire Hebrew Bible: here, and in Genesis 12:10. In Genesis 12, Abraham leaves the promised land for Egypt after a famine. He makes this decision without consulting Yahweh. Moreover, as he goes, he does not trust Yahweh for protection but concocts a sinister and selfish plan to protect his own life at the expense of Sarai. He instructs her to tell the Egyptians she is his sister (Gen. 12:11–13). As a result of all this, God’s plan to bless the nations through Abraham and Sarai’s seed is threatened, as Pharaoh takes Sarai into his court (12:14–16). Yahweh, however, intervenes. He graciously preserves the wife, and through Pharaoh forces the family to return to the promised land (12:17–20). 

It is interesting that this episode seems to repeat itself in the life of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Again, there is famine in the land (26:1),³⁰ Isaac seems to consider sojourning in Egypt, but Yahweh prevents it and promises his blessing and protection in the promised land (26:2–6). Isaac, like his father, does not trust Yahweh and lies about his wife (26:7). Before Yahweh’s promises can be threatened by a Philistine king, however, he once again intervenes, graciously preserving the wife and protecting the family (26:8–11). Both these episodes are evoked by the author of Ruth and cast a doubtful shadow over the decision to sojourn outside the promised land in the days of famine. It reveals distrust in Yahweh and his promises. Moreover, the subtle detail that the wife is preserved through all this also connects well with the story of Ruth.

The clearest textual allusion, however, is found in the next phrase: “and a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn” (1:1, וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּ֧ית־לֶ֣חֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר). The wording is strikingly similar to that of Judges 17:8, which recounts an event in the same period of Israels history: “and the man went from the town of Bethlehem in Judah to sojourn” (‏וַיֵּלֶךְ הָאִישׁ‎ ‏מֵהָעִיר מִבֵּ֥ית־לֶחֶם‎ ‏יְהוּדָה לָגוּר).³¹ Here too, a man from Bethlehem in Judah decides to sojourn. He is a Levite who sojourns with Micah from Ephraim, an idolator, where he becomes his household priest (Judg. 17:1–13). This is but the beginning of the ensuing wickedness. The episode culminates in the grim atrocity at Gibeah which abyssal darkness marks the end of the book of Judges (Judg. 19–20). This obvious allusion is a rather ominous one.

Fourth, the name of the head of the household might also be allusive of the days of the Judges. The book of Judges closes with the refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what seemed right in his own eyes” (21:25). Elimelech’s name means something like “my God is king”. His actions, however, show that Yahweh is not truly king over him.³² He abandons his King’s kingdom, only to die in exile.

Fifth, the chiastic structure and the cadence of the sentences support a negative reading as well. Standing across from one another are the decision of Elimelech to sojourn in Moab (1:1–3), and the decision of the sons to extend the sojourn in Moab for ten years (1:4–5). In both cases, the sojourn in Moab is ostentatiously linked to the ensuing deaths. Literally, “and they entered the fields of Moab and were there. And he died, Elimelech the man of Naomi” (1:2b–3); “and they dwelt there about ten years. And they died, also the two of them, Machlon and Kilion.” This clear rhetorical rhythm strongly hints at retributive judgment.

Sixth, as Peter Lau points out, the extension of the sojourn by Machlon and Kilion for ten years might once again evoke the Abraham narrative. Genesis 16 recounts that after ten years of barrenness in the land, Sarah suggests the disastrous plan to have Hagar bring forth children for Abraham.³³ This allusion also serves to highlight the fact that these marriages were childless, which is also a curse of the covenant (Deut. 28:18).

Seventh, and finally, the tragic events recounted in Ruth 1:1–7 track closely with the symbolic universe of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. A move eastward, like the one described here, resulting in death, follows a familiar pattern that finds its origins in Genesis. Adam and Eve are expelled to the east after their rebellion against God, where they would ultimately die (Gen. 3:24). Cain, after his horrendous act, is described as settling in the east “away from the presence of the Yahweh” (4:16). The tower of Babel is constructed in the east (11:2) and Lot journeys eastward (13:11). The east is a place of rebels and exiles. A move to the east is symbolic of a move away from the presence of God and the realm of life, into the realm of death. Conversely, a move westward is a move back into the presence of God, into the realm of life.³⁴ It is no coincidence that the entrance of the tabernacle faces east, as did the entrance of Eden (Ex. 26:22–37; cf. Gen. 2:24). As Michael Morales points out: “Movement away from God is therefore understood as a descent away from life (creation) toward death (chaos); and conversely, movement toward God is expressed as an ascent from death to life.”³⁵ The first seven verses of Ruth reflect this perspective, as Elimelech’s decision to move eastward results in death, whereas Naomi’s decision to return westward brings her back into the realm of God’s lifegiving provision.

It is at this point that the reader is invited to consider the broader typological implications of this introductory section. This prototypical Hebrew family—with two sons³⁶—becomes a figure of Israel under Deuteronomic covenant curse: famine, barrenness, exile and death. What Israel would experience on a grand scale, this family experiences in microcosm, prefiguring the covenantal curses that would ultimately fall on Israel. Significant here is the fact that Naomi, both after the death of her husband, and after the death of her two sons, is described as “left” or “remaining” (שׁאר; Ruth. 1:3, 1:5). This word is used repeatedly throughout the Pentateuch to describe those who are left over after divine judgment (e.g. Gen. 7:23; Ex. 14:28).³⁷ Indeed, this is the word used to describe the remnant that would be left over after the covenant curses. Yahweh would bereave Israel of their children (Lev. 26:22; Deut. 28:18), break the supply of bread (Lev. 26:26; Deut. 28:17), scatter them among the nations (Lev. 26:33; Deut. 4:27; 28:64), and only a remnant (שׁאר), few in number, would remain (Lev. 26:36, 39; Deut. 4:27, 28:62). These lexical echoes and Deuteronomic curse-pattern, woven deliberately into the introduction of this book, unmistakably signal the typological thrust of the passage: Elimelech’s family embodies Israel under judgment, with Naomi alone preserved as the remnant.

By weaving in these typological points of connection, however, the author also anticipates hope—a hope on which the rest of the book will capitalize. Naomi, as the remnant, might very well be the recipient of renewed covenant blessing—provided she will repent (Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). This expectation is picked up by the prophets, as they anticipate a remnant returning after the exile (e.g. Isa. 10:21; Jer. 23:3; Mic. 2:12). The key term here is returning or repenting (שׁוב). According to Deuteronomy 30, this is what is required: “And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind and return (שׁוב) to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I commanded you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you” (ESV, Deut. 30:1–3). It is no surprise, then, that this key term ‘to repent’ or ‘to return’ becomes a central theme in the rest of Ruth 1.³⁸ And indeed, the first decision Naomi takes as the remnant is to return (שׁוב); for she has heard Yahweh has provided bread for his people (1:6–7). The narrator, however, capitalizes on the polysemy of שׁוב. At this point, it is unclear whether this physical return also marks true repentance—that is, a return to Yahweh (cf. Zech. 1:1–6).³⁹

A final typological observation concerns the town of Bethlehem in Judah. This town becomes the main stage of the book. It is the place of refuge and provision for Naomi and Ruth. But for the reader, it also recalls the birthplace of David (1 Sam. 17:12), the great king, whose family history is the concern of this book (cf. Ruth 4:17).⁴⁰ Structurally, the author has mirrored these introductory verses with the end of the book, which traces the genealogy of David (4:18–20). The book, then, forms the link between the time of the Judges and the Davidic monarchy, tracing how Yahweh reverses the downward spiral of Israel’s first centuries in the land through a righteous king. Israel’s need for a righteous king to lead the nation (cf. Judg. 21:25) is ultimately provided in the town of Bethlehem. In the book of Ruth, then, Yahweh’s physical provision (bread) and his spiritual provision (a righteous king) converge in Bethlehem of Judah.⁴¹ It is the converging of these realities that will drive the typological significance of the book.

To summarize, Elimelech’s family is a microcosm of Israel as a nation and a figure of what would happen to Israel under the covenant curses. As they look for provision and security among idolaters, they find themselves decimated in exile. Moab is a graveyard, a realm of death. Yahweh, however, graciously preserves a remnant: Naomi. She returns from the realm of death as she hears of Yahweh’s provision for his people. The remnant seeks provision in Bethlehem in Judah, which becomes the central stage of God’s kindness to the remnant. It is to Bethlehem that we now turn.

The Story: Return & Redemption in Bethlehem 

In this section, my aim is to analyze the remainder of the story, making narrative and structural observations most pertinent to the purposes of this paper. While limitations of space prevent extended treatment at several points, I trust that the interpretive approach transparently reveals that my interpretive perspective has been shaped by the biblical and typological spectacles provided by the author in the first seven verses. This approach assumes that both author and ideal reader are “Bible-believing”—people who operate within a worldview shaped by the Torah and the other Scriptures.⁴² After analyzing the story this way, I will step back to summarize and synthesize these observations.

Returning to Bethlehem

Within chapter 1, the departure from Bethlehem recounted in the first seven verses mirrors the return to Bethlehem in 1:19–22. In between, Naomi’s conversation with her daughters-in-law on the way back is recounted. Once again, a chiasm emerges:⁴³

It is in this dialogue that the word ‘return’ (שׁוב) takes center stage.⁴⁴ When one continues to approach this dialogue from a biblical theological perspective—assuming a worldview on the part of the author that is in keeping with Torah—Naomi’s ‘return’ proves to be only geographical, not spiritual.⁴⁵ As it turns out, she has returned to Bethlehem for bread, not for Yahweh (cf. Joh. 6:26). Although her words towards her daughters-in-law sound pious at first (1:8b–9a), the façade collapses in 1:15.⁴⁶ She explicitly urges Ruth to return to her idols, just as her sister-in-law has done. Naomi evidently does not view the world in keeping with Torah. Idols are detestable and corrupting, not tolerated by Yahweh (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 6:15; Deut. 29:16–19). They are nothing, and all who make them and worship them will become like them (see Ps. 115:2–9, 135:15–18). Yahweh is the only true God, and worship belongs to Yahweh alone (e.g. Ex. 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 6:4, 32:39)–and sojourning Gentiles among the people of Yahweh should be called to the same exclusive worship (Ex. 12:48–49; Num. 15:15–16; Lev. 24:22). Naomi’s quiet displeasure with Ruth’s insistence to turn to Yahweh and his people testifies to her warped spiritual condition (1:18).⁴⁷ She essentially tells her daughters-in-law they can go to hell.⁴⁸

Upon approaching Bethlehem, Naomi reaches a spiritual low as she accuses Yahweh, charging him with evildoing, while dishonoring Ruth, regarding her as nothing (1:19–22).⁴⁹ Another chiasm surfaces:

Naomi accuses Yahweh of causing her bitterness (1:20), making her empty (1:21a), testifying against her (1:21b) and bringing disaster upon her (1:21b). From a Scriptural perspective, this is a faithless and rebellious lie. Yahweh did not cause her bitterness—she responds with bitterness over Yahweh’s righteous punishment. He did not bring her back empty but graciously granted her Ruth. And although Yahweh did bring disaster on her family and testified against them, this was the righteous result of covenant breaking and wholly in accordance with Torah. Yahweh remained faithful to the covenant, and Naomi’s return is a result of his unmerited favor.

On this reading, the contrast between Israelite Naomi and gentile Ruth is rather striking. Both are said to ‘שׁוב’ (1:22), but there is a pronounced difference between what this means for each. Naomi is returning, but not ‘repenting’. Ruth, on the other hand, is not returning—after all, she never lived in Israel—but she is ‘repenting,’ turning away from idolatry to serve the living God.⁵⁰ In this way, the author ingeniously draws attention to the physical and spiritual aspects of ‘שוב,’ highlighting Naomi’s problem, and Ruth’s example. As we will see, this stark and unexpected contrast will continue throughout the narrative.

Redemption in Bethlehem 

For the purposes of this paper, I only briefly consider chapters 2 and 3, highlighting the features most pertinent to a redemptive-historical, typological reading of the book. Both chapters follow a similar structure: each opens with a “pre-brief” (2:1–3; 3:1–5) and closes with a corresponding debrief (2:18–23; 3:15–18) that records conversations between Naomi and Ruth. At the center of each chapter stands a scene set on an agricultural site (2:3; 3:2)—one by day, the other by night—each enacting a different plan: the first initiated by Ruth (2:1–3), the second proposed by Naomi (3:1–5). Ruth’s plan, symbolically represented by the light of day, is pure, forthright, and faithful. Naomi’s plan, corresponding to the concealment of night, is tainted by impropriety, deception, and unbelief. 

In Ruth 2:1–3, Ruth takes the initiative to glean lawfully in the fields to provide for herself and her mother-in-law; her actions embody trust in Yahweh’s provision for the poor, the foreigner, and the widow as mandated in Torah (Lev 19:9–10; Deut 24:19–21). In Ruth 3:1–5, however, Naomi urges a nocturnal and sexually charged scheme, one that resonates with earlier troubling narratives of seduction and impropriety (Gen 19:30–38; 38:11–26; cf. Hos 9:1).⁵¹ Nevertheless, both scenes ultimately prove fruitful and redemptive because of the covenantal faithfulness of Boaz and Ruth acting under Yahweh’s quiet but sovereign providence. In the former scene this happens through the faithfulness of Boaz, an excellent man (2:1,אִישׁ גִּבּוֹר חַיִל), who recognizes Ruth’s authentic and radical conversion, likening it to Abraham’s paradigmatic act of obedient faith expressed in leaving land and kin (Ruth 2:11; cf. Gen. 12:1). Accordingly, he blesses Ruth with lavish generosity (Ruth 2:14–17). In the latter scene it is Ruth’s faithfulness that is decisive. She is identified as an excellent woman (3:1, אֵשֶׁת חַיִל) and carries out Naomi’s instructions with strict fidelity to their literal wording, but without capitulating to their illicit intent. She uncovers Boaz’s feet only in the plain sense of the act (contra its potential sexual connotations, cf. Lev 18:6–19), positions herself humbly at his feet, and avoids any compromising behavior (Ruth 3:6–8).⁵² At the center of each chapter, Boaz praises Ruth (2:11–12; 3:10–11). 

In both chapters, Yahweh’s redemptive purposes for Ruth and Naomi are developed, mediated through a pre-Davidic figure. As these scenes unfold, the author develops the significance of Boaz’s role as the kinsman-redeemer (גֹאֵל) whose task is to protect family inheritance, secure the future of the deceased, and act in accordance with Yahweh’s covenantal provision for the vulnerable (cf. Lev 25:23–55; Deut 25:5–10). Ruth, the Gentile who has turned from Moab’s idols to seek refuge under Yahweh’s wings (2:11–12), encounters this redemption tangibly through Boaz’s willingness to assume that role. Boaz’ actions in the fields—first in providing food, protection, and rest (2:8–16), and then in promising to “spread his wing” over Ruth as a redeemer (3:9–13)—display the concrete outworking of Yahweh’s quiet but sovereign care. Through Boaz, Ruth is not merely preserved but incorporated into the covenant community with the hope of enduring life and lineage. 

Although Ruth is the immediate recipient of his generosity, Naomi is not excluded from these blessings: the abundance Ruth brings home (2:18; 3:15) and Boaz’s explicit concern for Naomi’s well-being (3:17) signal that the redemption extended to the foreigner will overflow to the remnant Israelite as well. Thus, in both chapters the author shows that Yahweh’s redemptive purposes—and the first hints of covenantal blessing and restoration for Naomi—are mediated through this ‘pre-Davidic’ redeemer, whose faithful actions begin to reverse the curse that dominated the opening of the book. One should not miss the scandalous message of the book however: the blessing that overcomes the curse is here first and foremost received by a Gentile.  

In 4:1–12, Boaz faithfully acts in accordance with Torah (e.g., Lev. 25; Deut. 25:5–10) and manages to redeem Ruth. The chiasm is as follows:

For our purposes here 4:11–12 are significant, as the gathered witnesses respond with a threefold blessing rooted in Israel’s covenantal/redemptive history: (1) that Ruth would be like Rachel and Leah, the matriarchs from whom the house of Israel was built; (2) that Boaz would become mighty in Ephrathah and renowned in Bethlehem—a prophetic foreshadowing of the central role Bethlehem will take in redemptive history (see Mic. 5:2–5; cf. Isa. 11:1–12; Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 34:23–24; Hos. 3:5)—and (3) that the house of Boaz would be like the house of Perez, son of Judah through Tamar, thereby invoking the line of the seed of the woman through which God’s redemptive purposes advance (see Gen. 49:8–12; cf. 17:6–8). The explicit reference to the seed here (הַזֶּרַע; 4:12) picks up for the redemptive expectation of the promised seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head and thereby reverse the curse (Gen. 3:15; cf. 12:1–3; 22:15–18). 

Restoration in Bethlehem

In 4:13–17a, the author returns his focus to Naomi, highlighting how Boaz’ act of redemption affects the embittered and bereaved woman of chapter 1. Although Ruth is once again praised, the main concern of these verses is Naomi’s physical and spiritual state. A small chiastic structure appears:

At first glance, it is somewhat surprising that, although Naomi takes center stage again, she does not speak anymore. It turns out that her final words were already in 3:18. It mirrors what happened in chapter one: Whereas the townswomen were silent in response to the bitter words of Naomi in 1:19–22, Naomi is now silent in response to the pleasant words of the townswomen here.

These women, however, make an interesting ‘interpretive’ move. Although the author has repeatedly identified Boaz as the redeemer, in accordance with its use in the law, the women identify the child as Naomi’s redeemer. Such a stretch of the term is without parallel in Scripture and should arrest the reader’s attention.⁵³ In what sense is this child a redeemer for Naomi? The narrator continues to report that the women saying to Naomi that this redeeming baby “will be to you the restorer/returner of life” (וְהָיָה לָךְ לְמֵשִׁיב נֶפֶש) and a “provider in old age” (4:15, וּלְכַלְכֵּל אֶת־שֵׂיבָתֵךְ). These descriptions are highly significant, picking up both the physical and spiritual needs of Naomi. The pilpel of כול here describes physical provision, food.⁵⁴ Significantly, this is what Joseph did for his father and brothers in Egypt (Gen. 47:12; 50:21). But this child will not just be a physical provider, he will be a ‘restorer of the soul,’ ‘a returner of life.’ This phrase is used in various ways, describing a spiritual revival of the soul (Ps. 19:7), restoration after the devastation of enemies (Ps. 35:17),⁵⁵ a combination of those two (Lam. 1:11, 16, 19), and plain resurrection (1 Kings 17:22; cf. Job 33:30). The townswomen seem to have picked up that Naomi’s embittered spirit needs revival after the devastation of the curse. The author uses the hiphil of the verb שׁוב (‘to return’) here, which, as mentioned above, only occurs in that form in 1:21. There, it described the bitter, faithless return of Naomi. The deliberate stretch of the term “redeemer” by the townswomen, then, is an expression of the hope that this child would not only be a physical redeemer for Naomi, but a spiritual redeemer as well: one who would truly ‘return’ Naomi to Yahweh.

To that end, the women name the child ‘Obed’ (4:17b, עוֹבֵד), meaning servant. This introduces the final section of the book, which finishes the story and connects it to the Davidic dynasty. God’s provision for Naomi, through Boaz and Ruth, also provides what Israel needs: A righteous king to rule the nation.

The book does not record whether Naomi ultimately ‘returned’ to Yahweh, in a spiritual sense. This might very well be on purpose. The author has recognized redemptive historical significance in the history of David’s house and presents these prophetic patterns as an invitation to repentance for Israel’s (future) remnant. To this typological understanding of the book of Ruth we now return.

Patterning the Future: A Typology of Redemption

The cumulative force of the narrative and structural observations presented above urges the reader to consider the biblical theological implications of this book. As it turns out, the author of Ruth not merely recounts a family’s transition from famine to fullness; he crafts a narrative that patterns, in microcosm, Yahweh’s future redemptive dealings with Israel and the nations. Each major character—Elimelech, Naomi, Ruth, Boaz, and ultimately Obed—functions as a typological participant in the redemptive drama that culminates in the rise of (the future) David. The author’s literary strategy through inner-biblical allusions is to portray Ruth’s story as a prophetic template: a divinely guided pattern that anticipates the eschatological redemption promised in the Torah and developed in the Prophets. I will summarize and synthesize the role of each in this drama.

Elimelech & Naomi as Israel/Remnant

As I argued above, the narrative cast Elimelech and his family as an embodiment of Israel under covenant curse. Naomi fulfills the role of remnant. Their descent into exile, bereavement, and bitterness enacts Israel’s Deuteronomic trajectory: famine (Deut 28:23–24), barrenness (28:18), foreign sojourn (28:36–37), and death (28:20, 26). Naomi is repeatedly described as “remaining” (1:3, 5), echoing the Pentateuch’s language for the preserved remnant (e.g., Lev 26:36, 39; Deut 4:27). By positioning Naomi as the judged, preserved and returning remnant, the author locates her within the covenantal pattern that anticipates Israel’s future renewal (Deut 30:1–10). Naomi’s story is not simply a tragedy followed by restoration; it is a prophetic tragedy—a dramatization of Israel’s plight that prepares readers for the hope of restoration. Moreover, given the negative portrayal of Naomi, it might also function as a prophetic invitation to repentance. After all, just as Naomi physically returns from ‘exile’ while still requiring a spiritual return, Israel’s returned remnant turned out to need the same (e.g. Zech. 1:1–6).

Significantly, Naomi’s restoration comes about through a (pre-Davidic) redeemer whom Yahweh provides. Naomi’s physical and spiritual restoration is not self-generated. It comes as a result of God’s grace mediated through a redeemer—first Boaz, and ultimately the child Obed. The fact that the remnant is restored through a redeemer (גֹּאֵל) anticipates a central prophetic theme in the Hebrew Bible. Not only is it Yahweh himself who is often called Israel’s redeemer (גֹּאֵל; e.g. Ps. 19:14), this title will especially feature prominently in the context of prophecies regarding Israel’s restoration after exile (Isa. 43:14; Jer. 31:11; 50:34; Ps. 107:2–3; cf. Isa. 44:6; 44:23; 48:20). Isaiah 54:5 even connects it explicitly to the theme of marriage: After the restoration from exile, Yahweh will be Israel’s Redeemer-Husband. The author of Ruth noticed a prophetic pattern in Naomi’s story and presents it as an enacted parable of the future restoration of the remnant after exile.

Ruth as the Gentile Nations

Ruth’s role is no less prophetically charged. The book’s emphasis on her Moabite identity heightens the surprise of her conversion, and her full inclusion into the people of God through marriage. Boaz, who graciously spreads his wings over Ruth (Ruth 3:9) ties him obviously to Yahweh himself (2:12), becoming the mediator of Yahweh’s redemptive mercy for Ruth. As it turns out, this Gentile inclusion picks up important prophetic threads from the Hebrew Bible as well. Already in the Song of Moses, we find hints of unexpected Gentile inclusion (Deut. 32:21), which is further developed in the Prophets (e.g., Isa. 2:2–4; 11:10–12; 19:23–25; 42:1–6; 56:3–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Ezek. 47:21–23; Mic. 4:1–5; Zeph. 2:11; Zech. 2:11; Mal. 1:11).⁵⁶  Remarkably, the blessing and restoration of the remnant (Naomi) comes only after Yahweh has first bestowed grace on the gentile. This seems to be the scandalous but mysteriously portended pattern of redemption hinted at in Deuteronomy 32:21 and later prophetic literature, like Isaiah 19:23–25.⁵⁷ Yahweh provokes Israel to jealousy through mercy granted to the nations, only then extending restoration to Israel itself. Ruth’s story is not an isolated anomaly but an intentional promise-shaped pattern that develops the mystery fully unveiled in the New Testament (cf. Rom 11:11–15).

Boaz as the Davidic Redeemer

As the redeemer (גֹּאֵל), Boaz embodies the covenantal obligations of Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 25:5–10, yet he transcends mere legal duty. He acts with חֶסֶד—the covenantal faithfulness that mirrors Yahweh’s own character (Ex. 34:6–7). Boaz is repeatedly portrayed as Yahweh’s instrument of blessing. The narrator thus invites the reader to view Boaz as a ‘pre-Davidic’ redeemer, a righteous man raised up in Bethlehem to mediate Yahweh’s salvation to foreigner and remnant alike.

Boaz not only prefigures David—who, as a righteous king, would be God’s spiritual provision for Israel so that the cursed spiral of the days of the Judges would be stopped— but he also prefigures the eschatological king from David’s line. In the prophetic expectation of the latter days, Israel’s salvation would come through a Davidic shepherd-king from Bethlehem (e.g. Mic. 5:2–5; Ezek. 34:23–24; Jer. 23:5–8). Boaz anticipates both David and future David by offering a historical prototype: a Bethlehemite redeemer whose righteous rule reverses the trajectory of covenant curse and inaugurates a time of covenantal blessing. Boaz’s actions, therefore, are not merely exemplary; they are typological. His redemption of Ruth and Naomi foreshadow the greater redemption that will come through the son of David, born in Bethlehem.

Obed as Royal Seed & Redeemer-Servant

The typological climax comes in chapter 4, when the townswomen identify the seed (4:12, זֶרַע) that comes through Boaz and Ruth as Naomi’s redeemer (4:14, גֹּאֵל). He is called restorer/returner of life (4:15, לְמֵשִׁיב נֶפֶש), provider (4:15, וּלְכַלְכֵּלְ), and servant (4:17, עוֹבֵד). The cumulative typological force of these titles is unmistakable. The language of seed situates Obed within the promised line of descent through which Yahweh would bless the world. It recalls the promise of the seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15), the Abrahamic promise that blessing for the nations would come through his seed (Gen 12:1–3; 22:17–18), traced through Isaac and Jacob to Judah, through whom the promised line of descent continues (Gen 49:8–12). This seed language is picked up again in the promises of the royal covenant that Yahweh makes with David, promising an everlasting kingdom to his seed (2 Sam 7:12–16). This prophetic expectation is further developed in the prophets as a shoot from the stump of Jesse is said to restore Israel and draw even the Gentile nations to himself (Isa 11:1, 10). 

The title restorer of life, as developed above, evokes Yahweh’s restoring/resurrecting activity, especially after judgment (e.g. Ps 19:7; Lam 1:11, 16, 19; 1 Kgs. 17:22) and calling the child a provider recalls the Joseph narrative, where the paradigmatic redeeming figure of Genesis preserves first the nations and then his own family, providing bread for them (Gen 47:12; 50:21). These themes resonate with the story and structure of Ruth, in which a Gentile is blessed first, to be followed by the Israelite. 

Finally, naming the child servant aligns him with other servants of Yahweh through whom his redemptive purposes are advanced: Moses, His faithful servant (Num 12:7); David, His servant-king (2 Sam 7:8; Ps 78:70–72) and the promised Servant of Isaiah who brings justice to the nations (Isa 42:1), restores Israel (Isa 49:6), and accomplishes redemption and resurrection-like renewal after exile (Isa 52:13–53:12). In Obed, all these prophetic threads come together. He is not just Naomi’s hope of restoration; he figures as a typological anticipation of the royal seed and redeemer-servant who will ultimately bring restoration to Israel and blessing to the nations.

Conclusion

In light of the literary evidence surveyed in this study, it becomes clear that the author of Ruth consciously shapes this narrative as a prophetic and typological microcosm of redemptive history. Elimelech’s household embodies Israel’s covenant-breaking trajectory into exile and death, while Naomi stands as the preserved remnant in need of restoration. Ruth, the Gentile, models true repentance and faith, becoming a type of the Gentile nations to whom Yahweh would ultimately extend mercy. Boaz, the pre-Davidic redeemer, mediates blessing and restoration through covenantal faithfulness, anticipating the righteous king whom Yahweh would later raise from Bethlehem. And Obed—the royal seed and servant-redeemer—pre-figures the promised Messiah. He embodies hope for resurrection, restoration, and the continuation of the promised line through which Yahweh will bring redemption to Israel and blessing to the nations.

Thus, the narrative of Ruth not merely recounts historical events but sets forth a typological pattern of redemption: curse gives way to blessing; exile gives way to return; bitterness gives way to restoration; and death gives way to life—all through the provision of a redeemer. Indeed, through various thematic and textual allusions, the author of Ruth presents the narrative as a typological microcosm of Yahweh’s redemptive purposes for Israel and the nations as anticipated in the Pentateuch and carried forward in the Prophets.

---

Footnotes

1. The proposed purposes that follow are taken from a helpful list in Peter H. W. Lau, The Book of Ruth, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2023), 21–29. ↩︎
2. Murray D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme and Purpose (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 120–139. Or less cynical and simply explaining “how David, the most significant human character in the Hebrew Bible, could emerge from the spiritual and ethical morass that characterized the period of the judges”, Daniel I. Block, Ruth: A Discourse Analysis of the Hebrew Bible (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2015). ↩︎
3. John Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 370–371. Cf. Donald A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: With Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Company, 1974), 172. ↩︎
4. The majority view. See, e.g. L. Daniel Hawk, Ruth, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). André LaCocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary, trans. K. C. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004). Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Ruth, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011). Victor H. Matthews, Judges and Ruth, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).  ↩︎
5. As Rabbi Ze’eira suggests, “Why was it written? It is to teach you the extent of the good reward for those who perform kindness”, in MidrashRuth Rabbah 2:14, trans. Joshua Schreier, eds. Michael Siev and Yaacov Francus, managing ed. Jason Rappoport, copy-edited by Deborah Meghnagi Bailey and Ilana Sobel, The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth_Rabbah.2.10. So also, Frederic W. Bush, Ruth–Esther, Word Biblical Commentary 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 52. ↩︎
6. Lau, The Book of Ruth, 28–29. ↩︎
7. Those who hold to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures should in my opinion reject the cynical proposals. ↩︎
8. James M. Hamilton Jr. argues: “The Writings re-sing the whole song”, in “Canonical Biblical Theology,” in God’s Glory Revealed in Christ: Essays in Honor of Thomas R. Schreiner, ed. Denny Burk, James M. Hamilton Jr., and Brian Vickers (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), 73. ↩︎
9. For understanding the Psalms as an “impressionistic narrative” that traces Israel’s history from historic David, through the monarchy, into exile, and anticipating restoration through a future David, see James M. Hamilton Jr., Psalms, Volume 1: Psalms 1–72, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 3–11. ↩︎
10. At this point, I am agnostic on the question of the date of composition of Ruth. Whether Ruth has an (early) postexilic date, or a late monarchic date does not influence the argument of this paper much.  ↩︎
11. My approach here echoes James M Hamilton Jr.’s understanding of typology as “God-ordained, author-intended historical correspondence and escalation in significance between people, events, and institutions across the Bible’s redemptive-historical story (i.e., in covenantal context)” in Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 26. ↩︎
12. E.g. Tod Linafelt, Ruth, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), xxi – xxiii, adapted by Block in Ruth, 39; Stephen Bertman, “Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 84, no. 2 (1965): 165–68; Shimon Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” Vetus Testamentum 30, no. 2 (1980): 154–73; Bezalel Porten, “The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study,” Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies 7 (1978): 23–49; Consult Lau for a comprehensive list of scholars who have recognized a chiastic arrangement, The Book of Ruth, 2. ↩︎
13. See Lau, The Book of Ruth, 3–6. ↩︎
14. See also Lau, The Book of Ruth, 286. ↩︎
15. Although the word ‘gate’ is not mentioned explicitly in 1:19–22, the scene is played out while Naomi and Ruth are entering the town (1:19). ↩︎
16. Although Ruth has faithfully joined her mother-in-law back to Bethlehem, Naomi speaks of returning “empty” (1:21). ↩︎
17. The detailed chiastic structures of these two chapters are presented throughout this paper. ↩︎
18. See Bush, Ruth–Esther, 59, for different proposals on the arrangement and boundaries of the introductory section. ↩︎
19. See Edward F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, Anchor Bible, vol. 7 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 58–59, compares it to the ultimately unexplained misfortune of Job. Bush, Ruth-Esther, 67. ↩︎
20. Block, Ruth, 68. ↩︎
21. Bush, Ruth-Esther, 67. So also, James R. McKeown, Ruth: Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2015), 19. ↩︎
22. As Barry G. Webb observes, “Judges’ indebtedness to Deuteronomy is universally recognized. The key speeches at 2:1–5, 6:7–10, and 10:11–14 are all cast in typical Deuteronomic language. So is the overview of the judges period as a whole in 2:11–3:6, and the editorial framework of the individual judge narratives in 3:7–16:31. There is also a clear connection with the “blessing/curse” alternatives of Moses’ valedictory sermons in Deuteronomy 28–33. In Judges Israel experiences God’s presence and sovereignty over its affairs as either blessing (peace in the land) or curse (oppression at the hands of enemies), very much as Moses warned it would” in The Book of Judges, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012), 53. For a discussion of “Deuteronomic Theology in the Book of Judges,” see J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 103–110. ↩︎
23. According to the covenant conditions, times of blessing are marked by abundance (see Deut. 28:5; 11; 12; cf. Lev. 26:3–5), whereas times of curse are marked by famine (see Deut. 28:17–18, 22–24; cf. Lev. 26:14–16). ↩︎
24. So also, Peter H. W. Lau and Gregory Goswell, “With this background, it is likely that the beginning of the Ruth narrative is during a time of disobedience in the Deuteronomic Cycle, when Israel is suffering the covenant curse of famine” in Unceasing Kindness: A Biblical Theology of Ruth (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016). ↩︎
25. McKeown, Ruth, 19. ↩︎
26. Bush, Ruth-Esther, 67. ↩︎
27. Rabbinic exegesis agrees here, e.g. Ruth Rabbah 2:5, 6, 10, trans. Joshua Schreier, eds. Michael Siev and Yaacov Francus, managing ed. Jason Rappoport, copy-edited by Deborah Meghnagi Bailey and Ilana Sobel, The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth_Rabbah.2.10. ↩︎
28. Numbers 22:6 explicitly references Genesis 12:1–3, where God chooses Abraham and his family as the line through which the promised line of descent, the seed of the woman, will continue. ↩︎
29. The Targum to Ruth sees especially the intermarrying as an issue: “And because they transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord by intermarrying with strange peoples, their days were cut short, and the two of them, Mahlon and Kilion, also died, in an unclean land;” in Targum to Ruth 1:5, trans. Samson H. Levey (Hebrew Union College, 1934), Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Aramaic_Targum_to_Ruth.1. ↩︎
30. Note the explicit reference to the famine in Abraham’s day in 26:1, explicitly connecting these two episodes. ↩︎
31. Block, Ruth, 67. ↩︎
32. Block, Ruth, 67; Signe K. Saxegaard, Character and Characterization in the Book of Ruth, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/487 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 61–65. So also, Peter Lau, “Yet the one given a theologically orthodox name, “my God is king,” does not live up to his name because he leaves the promised land, the divine king’s chosen earthly land. (…) When placed next to the patriarchal narratives, the dissonance is more jarring because Elimelech does not wait for a word from his king before he leaves.” in the Book of Ruth, 69. ↩︎
33. Block, Ruth, 72–73; Lau, The Book of Ruth, 74. ↩︎
34. L. Michael Morales observes, “The pattern of exile from God’s Presence is repeated within the internal structure of Genesis, as the primeval age in Genesis 2 – 11 moves from Eden’s summit (temple/life) to the deluge waters (exile/death), and from Ararat’s summit (temple/life) to the scattering from the tower of Babylon (exile/death), and then the patriarchal history in Genesis 12 – 50 moves from Canaan (temple/life) to Egypt (exile/death).” in Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, New Studies in Biblical Theology 37 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 51. ↩︎
35. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord, 49. Morales goes so far as to say that these “two movements, either toward or away from the divine Presence upon the sacred mountain, define every movement and prophetic expectation in the Hebrew Bible. . . . The journey toward the mountain of God may be labelled an exodus (or entrance), and being driven away from the mountain of God may be dubbed an expulsion (or exile).” ↩︎
36. E.g., Adam with Cain & Abel, Abraham with Isaac & Ishmael, Isaac with Jacob & Esau, Judah with Perez & Zerah (cf. Ruth 4:12), Joseph with Manasseh & Ephraim. ↩︎
37. Lau, 72, Block, 71. ↩︎
38. The word occurs 12 times in chapter 1; see Lau, The Book of Ruth, 119. ↩︎
39. A similar dynamic is going on in Zechariah 1:1–6. There, the prophet calls the already-returned exiles to return (שׁוב) to Yahweh. Although they have physically returned to the land, they have yet to return ‘spiritually.’ ↩︎
40. When read in our modern translations, Ruth anticipates the birth of David in Bethlehem. However, following the Hebrew canonical ordering, Ruth is placed among the Writings, and thus presupposes knowledge of the history of David. This ordering, besides being universally accepted within Judaism and endorsed by Jesus, is preferred, as it makes sense of the prophetic and typological nature of this book. For a helpful essay on the order of the canon, see Hamilton, “Canonical Biblical Theology”, 59–73. ↩︎
41. In this light, readers ought to notice the painful irony of an Israelite family leaving Bethlehem, ‘the house of bread’ (1:1; בֵּית־לֶחֶם), because of a lack of bread (לָחֶם), especially since this physical lack in Israel is a covenantal manifestation of the spiritual lack. ↩︎
42. This understanding echoes James M. Hamilton Jr.’s approach to Biblical Theology, referring to the attempt to understand and embrace “the interpretive perspective of the biblical authors” in What Is Biblical Theology? A Guide to the Bible’s Story, Symbolism, and Patterns (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 15–23. ↩︎
43. Similarly, but slightly modified, Bush, Ruth-Ester, 72; Lau, the Book of Ruth, 84. As Lau (86) points out regarding 1:8b–9a seen in the chiasm below, these verses form a chiasm of their own:
    
    Also, standing across from the micro-level chiasm in 1:8b–9a, 1:16–17 also forms a chiasm on its own, (also Lau, the Book of Ruth, 100):
    
    ↩︎
44. The verb occurs 12 times. Lau, the Book of Ruth, 119. ↩︎
45. Much like Israel’s post-exilic history recounted in the books of Haggai, Zechariah and Ezra-Nehemiah. ↩︎
46. There might already be hint of Naomi’s resentment towards Yahweh in 8b–9a, as the Hebrew reveals that, though she uses Yahweh’s name, she does not say anything meaningful about him. She says that she hopes Yahweh would deal with her daughters-in-law with “loyal love” (חֶסֶד) but not based on his character (e.g. Ex. 34:6–7), but as a vague hope for retributive justice. Simply put, her encouragement in verse 8 
    finds its basis in the loyal love of Ruth and Orpah, not in Yahweh’s. This suspicion is confirmed by verse 9, as Naomi abruptly changes the direction of her words, mid-sentence, to encourage her daughter-in-law to find rest (מְנוּחָה) with husbands, not with Yahweh. As Lau translates it: “May Yahweh give you… Find rest each in the house of her husband” in the Book of Ruth, 86. She neither trusts in Yahweh as the God of loyal love (Ex. 34:6–7), nor as the God who gives rest (Deut. 12:11–12; cf. 28:64–65). ↩︎
47. For understanding Naomi’s silent treatment as a sign of displeasure, see Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), 74. Also, Daniel Hawk, who observes, “Given Naomi’s strident efforts to extricate herself from her daughters-in-law, and Ruth’s refusal to be so extricated, we may well see vexation in the report. In other words, faced with Ruth’s refusal to leave, Naomi stopped talking to her altogether.” in Ruth, 61–62. Cf. Katharine Sakenfeld, who sees Naomi’s response as revealing that Ruth’s loyalty is “an undesired “gift,” in Ruth, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 35. This reading is confirmed later, when Naomi speaks of returning “empty” (1:21). ↩︎
48. I was made aware of the striking implication of Naomi’s words in an Old Testament class at Southern Seminary, taught by Dr. James M. Hamilton Jr. ↩︎
49. So also, Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, “The implication for Ruth is devastating. Ruth is nothing. Naomi speaks as though the loyal companion at her side were invisible,” in Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 75. ↩︎
50. See Peter Lau’s excellent discussion on the “covenantal language” Ruth uses here, echoing Yahweh himself (see Jer. 32:38; 31:33), and how the use of Yahweh’s name points to “the authenticity of her faith” in The Book of Ruth, 102–107. Contra Block, who does not see this as a “wholesale conversion” but “no more than an affirmation of a transfer of membership from the people of Moab to Israel, and of allegiance from Chemosh to YHWH” in Ruth, 95. It is unclear to me how allegiance from Chemosh to Yahweh would involve anything other than a “wholesale conversion,” because allegiance to Yahweh—in any meaningful sense of the word—is only possible if, as Yahweh himself has indicated, one is exclusively worshipping him (e.g. Ex. 20:3; Deut. 6:4–5). ↩︎
51. Charles Halton describes it as an attempt of “sexual entrapment,” in “An Indecent Proposal: The Theological Core of the Book of Ruth,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 26, no. 1 (2012), 35. Cf. Fewell and Gunn, Compromising, 78. ↩︎
52. This reading was suggested to me by James M. Hamilton Jr. in an Old Testament class at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Somewhat in agreement with Halton, “An Indecent Proposal”, 30–43. Contra Lau, The Book of Ruth, 193. ↩︎
53. As Lau observes, “This is the only case in the Old Testament where the redeemer is not an adult male,” The Book of Ruth, 285. ↩︎
54. Lau, The Book of Ruth, 287. ↩︎
55. Hamilton, Psalms, Volume 1, 390. ↩︎
56. For the idea that Gentiles might be included in the former prophets, see David G. Firth, Including the Stranger: Foreigners in the Former Prophets, New Studies in Biblical Theology 50 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019). He concludes that, according to the former prophets, “The Israel that matters is the one that is continually reminded that their existence is for others, for foreigners, who can be welcomed into the nation or even share Israel’s faith while remaining where they are,” in “Foreigners and the People of God,” chap. 6. The example of the inclusion of Rahab is especially pertinent here, who is presented in Matthew’s genealogy as the mother of Boaz (Matt. 1:1–17). ↩︎
57. For more on this ‘mystery’, see G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014). ↩︎