James Jordan points out in his lectures on Ruth that the book contrasts Boaz with Elimelech as husband. Elimelech is a failure as a husband, leaving the land and then leaving Naomi alone. The contrast of the two men also has a political dimension.

Israel’s kings were in a quasi-marital relation with the land and people. When Saul goes to Samuel, he passes women going to a well, which is a marital motif. Robert Alter calls this an “abortive betrothal,” but I take it instead as a sign of the politico-marital relation that Samuel will establish between Saul and Israel by anointing Saul. Jeff Meyers has pointed to this theme in the Song of Songs. One dimension of this erotic symbolism is that the king is the lover, and the land and people are the beloved.

In Ruth, when Boaz replaces Elimelech as husband, he is also replacing him as king. “Elimelech” means “My God is King,” but Elimelech doesn’t act like a man who serves Yahweh as king. Boaz does, and his life and actions display a model not only of proper husbandry but of proper kingship. As king and husband, as husbandly king, Boaz provides food, gives and gives again, protects the vulnerable orphans and widows and cares for the poor and stranger, presides over a prosperous land, takes the bride, brings seed and a future for widow.

Boaz’s political role, we should note, is quite different from the minimalist American notion of political authority, but is quite consistent with other biblical models (cf. Psalm 72).