Naomi’s Strategy: Naomi is Ruth’s mother-in-law (khamot, 2:23). This feminine form of kham (“father-in-law”) is widely perceived by lexicographers to be a nominal derivative of the unattested verb *khamah. Cognates of this word appear in extrabiblical literature (Arabic khamay, “to protect, defend”; OSA ?mh, “sacred precinct, protective association”), and the root idea seems to be protection, shelter, or refuge. An Arabic attorney, for example, is a mu?amin (“protector”), while an Egyptian “protector” is a ?my. Hebrew khamot stands in this same semantic field, as does the term khomah (“wall”). Naomi sees herself as Ruth’s wall of defense.
3:1 Naomi returns to her earlier concern (see 1:9), My daughter, should I not try to find [lit. seek] a home for you? assuming the responsibility of “seeking out” (baqash; see Ezek. 34:16) for Ruth a place of rest (see menukhah in 1:9). Not only does she believe that Ruth needs a home, she also believes it to be her responsibility to help her find it. Underscoring this parental concern, Tg translates this line, “I swear I shall not rest (l’ ’nykh) until the time when I claim for you a resting place (nykh’), in order that you might be happy” (Tg. Ruth 3:1).
3:2 Is not Boaz, with whose servant girls you have been, a kinsman of ours? In the Syriac Bible, Naomi calls Boaz mkhkwmtn (“our kinsman”). What makes this interpretation so interesting is that this is not the same Syr word for “kinsman” in 2:1, though the Hebrew word is the same in both texts (moda’). The root of the Syr word here is khkm, which means “to know,” particularly “to know sexually.” The mkhkwmt is the cultural gyroscope responsible for knowing a widow in order to raise up seed for the dead. Syr’s interpretation brilliantly gets to the heart of Naomi’s realization. Finding Boaz may seem serendipitous (see 2:3), but not for Naomi. Naomi sees the hand of Yahweh at work. The same hand that once afflicted or testified (1:21) now heals and restores. Doubtless Ruth would have found one of Elimelech’s kinsmen sooner or later (“Is there a man in Israel who has no kinsmen?” b. Qidd. 21a), yet to find one so quickly astonishes Naomi.
Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Since one of the most pivotal scenes of the book takes place on a threshing floor (goren), one might imagine it to be a very private encounter. Yet Israelite threshing floors are very public places. People stream through them constantly, buying and selling goods of all sorts, not just threshed grain. In fact, so central are they to Israelite commerce, the idiomatic way to ask “Where can I find that?” in Modern Hebrew is still “. . . from the threshing floor or the wine press?” Festivals are celebrated there (Deut. 16:13–17). Prostitutes ply their trade there (Hos. 9:1).
Naomi is asking Ruth to go to a very public place and take a very public risk. Ruth’s intentions could easily be mistaken for those of any streetwalker (Hos. 9:1). This is probably why Boaz tells his men afterward not to “let it be known that a woman came to the threshing floor” (3:14).
3:3 Complementing the verbal command sequences of Ruth (1:16–17) and Boaz (2:8–14), Naomi now issues a command sequence of her own (3:3–18): Wash . . . Anoint . . . Put on . . . Go down . . . Do not make known . . . Know . . . Go . . . Uncover . . . Lie down . . . Wait.
The command Wash and perfume yourself, and put on your best clothes seems clear enough, yet Ruth Rabbah cannot resist the temptation to translate “wash yourself clean of your idolatry,” anoint yourself with “good deeds,” and put on “Sabbath clothes” (Ruth Rab. 5.12). Go down to the threshing floor. MT (Ketib) can be read as “I will go down” (yrdty), especially since early scribes correct to yrdt (Qere, “you go down”). Reading the first person ketib, Ruth Rabbah even has Naomi awkwardly add, “my merits will descend with you” (Ruth Rab. 5.12). Yet yrdty is probably an older second person feminine form (Syr, Tg, and Vg all translate as second person). In other words, Ruth is alone when she meets Boaz at the threshing floor.
Sexual connotations often orbit around the Hebrew term for “know” (yada’), but nowhere is this more subtle than in the instruction Don’t let him know you are there, particularly in light of the canonical-historical context. The perigee, or lowest point, of this orbit occurs when a gang of violent men taunt and terrorize a frightened old Gibeahite, demanding that he “bring out the man who came to your house so that we might ‘know’ him” (neda’ennu, Judg. 19:22). The apogee, or highest point, occurs when Naomi delicately cautions her daughter-in-law not to let herself become known too quickly by Boaz, their newly discovered kinsman (Syr mkhkwmt, from khkm, “to know sexually”). One kind of knowledge is destructive and violent. The other is patient and gentle.
3:4 Instead of Uncover his feet and lie down, the Syriac reads, “you shall draw near and lie down near his feet” (wtqrbyn wtdmkyn lwt rglwhy). The word for “feet,” as is well known, can be a euphemism for “genitalia” (1 Sam. 24:4; Isa. 6:2). Syr would have Ruth “uncover” nothing (the verb is conspicuously absent in Syr). Targum has Naomi add, “and you shall request counsel from him” (wth’ sh’yl’ mynyh ’yt’). Both options are more politically correct than textually precise. Both deal with the sexual tension in this encounter by euphemizing it. Naomi does not tell Ruth to uncover “his feet” (Hb. raglayw) but rather the “place of his feet” (MT margelotayw). This is a rare term found only four times in the Hebrew Bible (three of which are in this chapter, 3:4, 7, 8). In Modern Hebrew this word denotes “the place for the feet, the bottom,” for example, of a bedstead.
The versions offer little interpretive help. LXX reads “you shall uncover the things (?) near his feet” (apokalupseis ta pros podon autou), a translation that does little more than recognize the problem, not resolve it. Syr reads “his feet” (rglwhy), as does Tg (ryglwy), even though the more closely equivalent term (mrglwtyw) is readily available in Tg’s lexicon. In sum, Naomi tells Ruth to do something risky, but precisely how much of this can be characterized as sexual should remain an open question.
Ruth’s Submission
3:5–6 Ruth’s response to Naomi is clear and straightforward. I will do whatever you say. Notice Ruth does not say, “I will do whatever Boaz says,” even though Naomi has just told her, “He will tell you what to do.” In point of fact, Ruth will soon be telling Boaz what he needs to do. So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do. Ruth’s behavior here stands in direct contrast to her earlier behavior. In Moab, Naomi commands her to return to her mother’s house (1:8), and Ruth politely disregards her (1:14), eloquently arguing against her mother-in-law’s strategy (1:16–17). Here, however, she readily submits to Naomi’s command. Why? One could argue that circumstances have changed. Ruth is no longer standing on her own turf. Does the strangeness of her new surroundings, her new life, and her new role somehow contribute to a newfound docility? Are there other factors to consider?
Naomi faces a profound conflict. She believes in a God, Yahweh, who commands her, like every other Hebrew, to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Yet having lost every male in her family, this seems impossible. Her approach to this conflict, however, is not to use Ruth as “bait” in a scheme to blackmail Boaz with the threat of “public scandal” (D. N. Fewell and D. M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990], p. 78). Hers rather is the classic approach of the ancient Near Eastern wise woman. Though she is never called a wise woman, Naomi does what all wise women do: she is a mediator. This is a very ancient female role, habitually enacted as early as the thirteenth century B.C.E. by Anatolian wise women (the SALŠU.GI priestesses).
In ancient Anatolia, wise women enact mediatorial roles in order to resolve conflicts of all sorts—spiritual, theological, sociological, economic, political, and psychological. Conflict resolution for them is saturated in the rituals of homeopathic magic: If an abstract evil can be transferred into a concrete image of clay or wax, then the action taken to deal with the image somehow deals with the evil itself. To destroy, expel, or curse a homeopathic image is therefore to destroy, expel, or curse the evil that it contains. Parallelism lies at the heart of homeopathic magic.
Parallelism also lies at the heart of Hebrew mediatorial counseling, only here the efficacy of the healing process depends more on logic than magic. In 1 and 2 Samuel, for example, three wise women make effective use of parallelism. The wise woman of Tekoa has David make a decision in the imaginary world (parable, 2 Sam. 14:4–11) before leading him to make a decision in the real world (praxis, 14:12–24). The wise woman of Abel engages Joab with proverbial and metaphorical speech (parable, 2 Sam. 20:18–19) before taking action to resolve a military conflict (praxis, 20:22). Abigail deftly parallels words of wisdom (1 Sam. 25:24–31) with swift action (25:18–23) to stop a range war between David and her husband.
Parallelistic patterns of parable + praxis also shape the counseling strategies of Esther, Judith, and Naomi. In contrast to Mordecai’s classically prophetic approach, Esther chooses not to confront Haman directly. Instead she diplomatically manipulates him into a false sense of confidence (Esth. 5:1–8; 7:1–5), then hangs him on his own gallows (7:6–10). The apocryphal story of Judith takes the pattern of parable + praxis to baroque extremes. Like the wise woman of Tekoa, Judith spins a web of words in a powerful, hypnotic way (8:11–27; 8:32–34; 9:2–14; 11:5–19). Like Ruth, she “makes herself beautiful,” arraying herself “in all her finery” (10:4; 12:15). Like the warrior Jael, she knows exactly when to take swift action (13:6–10; see Judg. 4:17–22).
So Naomi and Ruth do the same thing. Naomi plans (parable) and Ruth implements (praxis). Naomi wants Boaz to make a decision about Ruth (parable) so she can help him make a decision about Elimelech’s heritage (praxis). That Ruth is willing to participate is no sign of desperation, anxiety, codependency, or lust. Nor is she driven simply by what Gunkel calls “the heroism of faith” (Ruth, p. 76). Naomi and Ruth are enacting time-honored roles, and they know exactly what they are doing.
Boaz’s Leadership
3:7 Harvest is a joyful time, especially after a famine, and so, when Boaz had finished eating and drinking he was in good spirits. As Gunkel puts it, “Erntezeit ist Segenzeit” (“harvest-time is blessing-time,” Ruth, p. 71). Boaz heartily celebrates the barley harvest until he finds himself in “good spirits” (lit. “his heart became happy,” wayyitab libbo). Often in Northwest Semitic marriage contracts this idiom is used to emphasize that the parties to the marriage are acting out of free will rather than compulsion. Significantly, this same idiom appears in Judges 19:9, where the Levite’s father-in-law, in a vain attempt to keep him from leaving, begs him to “let your heart become happy.” The parallels are telling. One man, Boaz, joyously celebrates the end of a tragic time, the Judean famine with all of its attendant miseries, while the other, the Levite’s father-in-law, hollowly celebrates his daughter’s departure with a heart full of anxiety.
He went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. The word translated “grain pile” in NIV (’aremah) can denote a mound of anything, not just grain. One poet languidly describes the abdomen of his lover as “a mound (’aremah) of wheat encircled by lilies” (Song 7:3). Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. The word for “quietly” (ballat) elsewhere describes David’s stealth in approaching Saul at a delicate private moment (1 Sam. 24:5). Syr humorously has Ruth wait until Boaz starts “snoring” (bmkhly’).
3:8 That nothing more takes place until the middle of the night implies that Ruth has to lie down next to Boaz for more than just a few minutes. Anyone who has ever camped outside in a strange place will identify with this scene. This may be one of the longest nights of Ruth’s life. Something startled the man (lit. “the man trembled,” kharad). Like Isaac (Gen. 27:33), Elihu (Job 37:1), and Saul (1 Sam. 28:5), Boaz trembles. Perhaps Boaz is startled by a Job-like nightmare experience: “You will lie down, with no one to make you tremble” (kharad, Zophar to Job in 11:19, my translation). Targum poetically speculates that Boaz’s “trembling” (rtt) is the trembling of “tenderness” (rkk) but quickly adds that Boaz feels no “erotic desire” for Ruth (yts ryh, Tg. Ruth 3:8). Perhaps Boaz is startled by Ruth’s elbow in his ribs!
3:9 When Boaz asks Who are you? Ruth does not call herself a “foreign woman” (nokriyyah, 2:10), nor does she call herself a “young girl” (na’arah). Instead, she discreetly says, I am your servant Ruth, using a more centrist term, “your servant” (’amatekah). What comes out of her mouth next, however, is anything but discreet. Laying aside Naomi’s instructions to let Boaz do the talking (3:4), she immediately blurts out, Spread the corner of your garment over me. MT reads “Spread your wing (kanap).” Syr reads “Spread the ‘wing’ of your cloak” (ks’ . . . bknp’ dmrtwtk). Targum departs altogether, reading, “Put your name over your servant” (Tg. Ruth 3:9). NIV follows Syr in sacrificing metaphorical imagery for supposed clarity.
Reading with MT, however, Ruth picks up Boaz’s earlier metaphor (“under whose wings [kenapayw] you have come to take refuge,” 2:12) and refashions it to suggest to this go’el that it is his responsibility to become Yahweh’s wing. Like the wise woman of Tekoa, Ruth proves that she is not inexperienced in traversing the path between parable and praxis (see 2 Sam. 14:4–24 and 13).
Ruth’s tête-à-tête with Boaz sharply contrasts with the incident in Judges 19:22–30. Reading these texts in tandem, one cannot help but note how this passage counteracts and subverts its canonical-historical counterpart. Here a woman initiates a risky nocturnal encounter with a well-respected community leader. There a mob plots homosexual, then settles for heterosexual, rape. Here a woman covers herself with her best clothes. There a mob covers all the exits of escape. Here a woman lies down and waits for a man to open the door. There a gang surrounds a man’s home, pounding violently on the door. Here a woman moves quietly and discreetly. There a gang bellows loudly and publicly. Here a man tries to protect a woman’s reputation. There a gang “toys with” a woman (’alal; NIV: abuses). Here an older man makes tender promises. There a younger man makes crude demands (“Get up! Let’s go!”). Interpreted in its context, the book of Ruth challenges the simplistic militance prevalent among some that “patriarchal sexuality” is the reason for “eroticized violence” against women (A. Gilson, Eros Breaking Free: Interpreting Sexual Theo-Ethics [Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1995], p. 127).
3:10 Boaz responds, The LORD bless you, my daughter. Gunkel wonders whether Boaz duly appreciates Ruth’s struggle to overcome “her natural female shyness,” but this is another extremist stereotype (Ruth, p. 77). Ruth has many character traits, but shyness is not one of them. When Boaz says, This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier, he presumably has in mind Ruth’s earlier hesed toward Naomi. Targum, however, thinks that Boaz is referring to Ruth’s conversion (Tg. Ruth 3:10). By “this kindness” Boaz refers to Ruth’s decision not to run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. Boaz is pleased by the fact that Ruth has decided to put the needs of Elimelech’s family ahead of her own.
3:11 Recognizing that it takes a strong faith not only to leave one’s homeland but also to approach a strange man in a public place, Boaz immediately assures her, Don’t be afraid. As E. W. Conrad points out, biblical characters often hear this assurance formula under times of stress. (See Fear Not, Warrior: A Study of ’al tirâ’ Pericopes in the Hebrew Scriptures [Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985], pp. 76–78.) All my fellow townsmen know (lit. all the gate of my people, a characteristically Hebraic idiom). You are a woman of noble character. Boaz feminizes the title (’eshet khayil) by which he himself is introduced (gibbor khayil, 2:1). “The same word (khayil) describes the greatness of possessions and the uprightness of character” (Gunkel, Ruth, pp. 70, 78). Ruth is the only female character in Judges 17–Ruth 4 to be pronounced an ’eshet khayil (see “worthy woman” in Prov. 31:10).
3:12 Boaz tries to communicate to Ruth something of the complex world of Israelite kinship networks (see 11): there is a kinsman-redeemer nearer than I. That there can be a multiplicity of kinsman-redeemers in any family clan, some nearer than others (go’el qarob) seems possible not only from a practical perspective but also from a legal one (note the priestly instructions about “the nearest redeemer” in Lev. 25:25, go’alo haqqarob). What makes Boaz stand out against his contemporaries, however, is that even though he knows his legal place (not the “nearest redeemer”) he still commits to helping Ruth. Inevitably some scholars will argue that his intentions are to take advantage of Naomi’s loss in order to seize Elimelech’s land. It seems wiser, however, to examine him alongside his canonical-historical contemporaries before guessing at his motives (15).
3:13 Stay here for the night. Boaz goes into protection mode because he does not want Ruth to navigate her way home unaccompanied. Doubtless there are other inebriated men sleeping on this threshing floor who might want to spread their skirt over this unescorted young woman.
That Boaz makes the observation if he wants to redeem, good; let him redeem at this point in their encounter seems proof that this is no infatuated youngster easily swept away by emotion. Boaz seems willing to let Israel’s social security system run its course apart from any personal involvement on his part. Perhaps this is not the first time he has had to deal with a situation like this. The Talmud is full of sticky cases where men like Boaz regularly have to decide how to apply biblical law to real life. In one case, for example, a man promises his neighbor, “This field which I have mortgaged to you shall be consecrated after I have redeemed it” (b. Ketub. 59b). As anyone who has ever bought or sold property will attest, something can always go wrong before closing. Thus the rabbis advise the buyer not to overcommit too soon. Similar wisdom is called for here. It is one thing for Ruth to appeal to Boaz for help. It is quite another to ignore the societal, legal, and economic institutions responsible for handling such requests.
Deuteronomic law allows for the possibility that the nearest relative may not be willing (lo’ khapats; cf. Deut. 25:7). Boaz wants Ruth to understand this clearly. But if he is not willing, as surely as the LORD lives I will do it. By sealing this promise with an oath Boaz takes yet another unnecessary risk. The taking of oaths is no light matter in ancient Israel. Even foolish oaths have to be honored (see Jephthah’s oath in Judg. 11:35).
3:14–18 From this point on Boaz takes the lead in providing closure to this encounter. First, he nips rumors: Don’t let it be known that a woman came to the threshing floor. Second, he shares with Ruth for the second time (2:14) from the bounty of his harvest. “Bring me the shawl you are wearing and hold it out.” When she did so, he poured into it six measures of barley [lit. six barlies]. Then he went back to town. Syr reads “then she packed up and went to town” (wshqlt w’tt lmdynt’), followed by Vg, but NIV is doubtless correct. Third, he sends Ruth back as a messenger to inform Naomi that her empty-handed days are over (req?m, v. 17; see the identical term in 1:21). Naomi’s response to Boaz’s action is to tell Ruth to wait . . . until you find out what happens. For the man will not rest [lit. “remain inactive,” sh?qat; not the same root for “rest” in 1:9 and 3:1] until the matter is settled today.
Additional Notes
3:1 Mother-in-law: On khamot (“mother-in-law”), see the article on khomah in TDOT 4:267 and BDB 327. On mukhamin (“defender”), see Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (ed. H. Wehr and M. Cowan; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1966), p. 209. On khmy, see Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache (ed. A. Erman and H. Grapow; repr.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1963), 3, p. 80.
My daughter: O. Loretz (“The Theme of the Ruth Story,” CBQ 22 [1960], pp. 391–99) emphasizes that Ruth is a story about the preservation of Elimelech’s family in the face of powerful destructive forces. S. Niditch (“The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration,” CBQ 44 [1982], pp. 365–78) reads Judg. 19–21 as the story of a domestic dispute that escalates into civil war.
3:2 Kinsman: On Syr mkhkwmt see PSSD 264.
Threshing floor: On the idiom “from the threshing floor or the wine press?” see R. Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary (Jerusalem: Masada, 1981), p. 385.
3:3 Then go down: On yrdty as an old second person feminine, see GHB 42b and GKC 44h.
3:4 Uncover his feet: G. Gerleman (“Brglyw as an Idiomatic Phrase,” JSS 1 [1959], p. 59) suggests that brglyw (Job 18:8; Judg. 5:15) does not mean “by his feet” but “on the spot, instantly.” For Modern Hebrew margelot, see Alcalay, Hebrew-English Dictionary, p. 1491.
3:5–6 For further study, see M. Moore, “Wise Women in the Bible: Identifying a Trajectory,” in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, vol. 2 (ed. C. D. Osburn; 2 vols.; Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1995), 2:96–101. V. Haas and I. Wegner (Die Rituale der Beschwörerinnen SALŠU.GI [Corpus der Hurritischen Sprachdenkmaler I/5; Roma: Multigrafica Editrice, 1988], pp. 1–4) describe in detail what SALŠU.GI priestesses do.
3:7 Good spirits: On the use of wayyitab libbo (“his heart became happy”), see R. Westbrook, “The Phrase ‘His Heart Is Satisfied’ in Ancient Near Eastern Legal Sources,” JAOS 111 (1991), pp. 220–22.
3:11 Fellow townsmen: LXX reads “tribe (phule) of my people.” Syr reads “generation of my people” (shrbt’ d’my). Vg combines these options to read, “all of the people who live inside the gates of the city.”
Woman of noble character: A. Wolters, (“Proverbs XXXI 10–31 as Heroic Hymn: A Form-Critical Analysis,” VT 38 [1988], pp. 446–57) sees “noble woman” (’eshet khayil) and “noble man” (gibbor khayil) as contrapuntal terms.
3:12 Kinsman-redeemer nearer than I: Boaz’s “mercenary motives” are hypothesized by Gunkel, Ruth, p. 79, and Fewell and Gunn, Compromising Redemption, p. 75.
3:13 Let him redeem: W. Brueggemann (Theology of the Old Testament [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], pp. 173–76) lists ga’al (“redeem”) as a “verb of deliverance” designed to “enunciate Yahweh’s resolved capacity to intervene decisively against every oppressive, alienating circumstance.”
3:16–18 Barley: K. Nielsen (Ruth: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1997], p. 80) thinks it “no coincidence that both chapters 2 and 3 end with gifts of grain,” because “the book uses the need for grain . . . as a leitmotif, and alongside this, the need for an heir.”
Insight: On Patriarchal Leadership
Although Boaz enacts a role as prototypical husband, what he does for Ruth on this threshing floor is best understood, perhaps, by comparing it with the behavior of the other father figures in the immediate context: the Levite’s concubine’s father (Judg. 19:2–10) and the old Gibeahite (19:16–26). Each of these father figures tries to do what is best for his children yet fails miserably. The goals of the Levite’s father-in-law, for example, are hazy. Does he want to keep his daughter home indefinitely? Is it his intention to persuade his son-in-law to stay in Bethlehem? Does he know something about the bad reputation of the Gibeahites? And what about his methods? Is he trying, like other biblical characters, to wear down his houseguest with food and drink (like David with Uriah, 2 Sam. 11:12–13)? Or is he simply unable or unwilling to make a decision?
The old Gibeahite faces a fierce challenge. He has to make a split-second decision before a violent mob pounds down his door. Boaz, by contrast, has only to deal with a perfumed young woman. In one sense it seems unfair to compare these two men. Yet the contrasts are telling. Whereas Boaz projects every confidence that he is the man to help Ruth, the Gibeahite seems bewildered. At no time does he appear to understand how futile it is to negotiate with a street gang. Like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who underestimated Adolf Hitler, he seems to rely only on the rightness of his cause:
The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them. (Judg. 19:23–25)
This is a classic case of good intentions substituting for leadership. First, the Gibeahite tries to address a lust-driven mob as “my friends” (lit. my brothers, akhay), attempting to converse civilly with a group the narrator himself calls the “sons of Belial” (19:22). Then, after begging them not to be “vile” (ra’a’) and “disgraceful” (nebalah), he himself does something vile and disgraceful. In place of the Ephraimite male they want to know, he offers them the man’s wife. He chooses to sacrifice the most defenseless person in his house—the opposite of what faithful patriarchs do.
By contrast, Boaz’s vision of pastoral care utterly astonishes Ruth. Boaz, as Andersen puts it, “‘does hesed’; he does not merely appear to be like a man who ‘does hesed’” (“Yahweh, the Kind and Sensitive God,” in O’Brien and Peterson, eds., p. 82). Unlike the Levite’s father-in-law, Boaz convinces a council of his peers to let him take a foreign widow “under his wing.” Unlike the old Gibeahite, Boaz courageously takes a stand. The father figures in Judges become examples of failure in a depressing string of failure stories (Judg. 17–21), while Boaz becomes a role model for future generations.