“After Boaz was through eating and drinking and was feeling good, he went to lie down at the end of the pile of grain. She stole in, uncovered his feet and lay down.”-Ruth 3:7
After Boaz had finished eating and drinking he was feeling good.
That phrase “feeling good” in this context means only one thing.
Boaz got a nice buzz from all the wine he’d been drinking during his meal.
I’m sure we can all relate to that feeling of contentment and satisfaction after finishing up a hearty meal with drinks…
And then soon after Boaz drifted into a deep sleep at the end of the pile of grain.
Now that’s an interesting detail provided there, don’t you think?
That “pile of grain” was the result of a hard day’s work…
Undoubtedly Boaz had crashed there to make sure sure no one would steal in to help himself to some free grain.
But ironically, someone WAS going to steal in…
And that someone was Ruth.
We’re told Ruth quietly snuck in, uncovered Boaz’s feet and lay down next to him.
After some time passed Boaz woke up and realized someone else was inside the room with him.
“Who’s there?!” he blurted out startled.
Ruth answered…
“I’m your handmaid Ruth.
Spread your robe
over your handmaid,
because you are
a redeeming kinsman.”
Alrighty, there’s a ton of stuff we’ve got to unpack here but today’s let’s focus on only one thing…
And this happens to be the most controversial thing.
We’re told Ruth uncovered Boaz’s feet.
Now are you aware that in the Bible “feet” is often used as a Biblical idiom to refer to the genitals?
For instance, “to cover one’s feet” can mean to relieve oneself in the restroom.
So building on this idea, scholars who specialize in literary criticism will argue that Ruth literally took Boaz’s pants off and exposed his private parts.
Really?
This is an interpretation that appears to have gained popularity but I think there’s quite a few problems with this line of reasoning.
First of all, let’s look at the original Hebrew word being translated into “feet” here.
That word is MARGELOTH or מַרְגְלָה.
This word is used only three times here in chapter 3 of Ruth and in the following verse from the book of Daniel.
“His body was like beryl,
his face looked like lightning
and his eyes like fiery torches;
his arms and feet were
the color of burnished bronze;
and when he spoke,
it sounded like
the roar of a crowd.”
-Daniel 10:6
Now here’s the issue.
MARGELOTH doesn’t just mean “feet”.
It’s a word that refers to pretty much the entire lower half of one’s body from the hips down to the legs and feet.
There’s actually another word that refers to the feet and ONLY the feet.
That word is REGEL or רֶגֶל.
And this happens to be the same word used in all those idioms that DO refer to the genitals.
However, MARGELOTH is never used to refer to genitalia anywhere in the Scriptures.
Therefore, I believe it is WRONG to translate MARGELOTH as “feet” here in Ruth.
So what would be the better translation?
I think it would be much more accurate to translate MARGELOTH as “legs”…
That’s right…
And I don’t care what your average concordance says.
Contextually speaking don’t you think that makes much more sense?
For example, when you go to bed at night, do you only cover up your feet with your blanket?
No man, you at least cover up half of your body.
So I’d say the correct translation would be more like…
“She stole in, uncovered his legs and lay down.”
Or I’d probably just say…
“Ruth stole in, removed his blanket and lay down”
Because that’s really what’s going on here homies.
To turn this into some hardcore pornography scene by saying Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals is I think quite a stretch.
Seriously, does it make sense that either Ruth or Boaz, folks who were devout, righteous and faithful to the one holy God of Israel would suddenly start having sex with each other before any marriage took place?
Like heck no man!
Remember, this was a culture where a woman’s virginity was highly prized…
I know Ruth wasn’t a virgin because she was married before…
But my point is, it would be considered quite an extremely immoral thing to have sexual intercourse with a woman outside of the marriage covenant.
And if Ruth stole in and really as some claimed exposed Boaz’s private parts, that’s downright prostitution man!
No man, such behavior is inconsistent with everything we know about the character of both Ruth and Boaz.
Over and out.
“such behavior is inconsistent with everything we know about the character of both Ruth and Boaz”
Exactly!
Thank you for bringing understanding on ‘feet’ vs. ‘legs’
Yup. Thanks for reading Eric.
The Bible has been “pulled for review” by some school districts when parents attempt to get rid of “Two Boys Kissing,” etc. Some parents could definitely add this to their apologetics arsenal.
This is interesting. However, maybe she exposed his entire lower parts from hip down because he would then be obligated to her because she saw his genitals. Women aren’t like men. When women see a man’s genitals, they aren’t desperate to jump on him. It’s dark where he lay. It’s not like the street lights or granary light is shining on him. He’s in the shadows. I doubt that he knows how he became exposed. But he is exposed, he’s older than her, he’s probably embarrassed and that obligates him to do her a favor.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying. But for me, your interpretation seems to be a bit of a stretch. Thanks for reading.
This is one of you best post,very well put and to the point. You always are a pleasure to read.
Glad you liked this John. Be blessed!
I am not sure it is that she is exposing his genitals as much as it is that she is exposing his circumcision – ie his covenant with God. To do the right thing.