Assessing Relationship Commitment: What Ruth and Boaz Can Teach Us About Lasting Love

I am not going to lie: I like playing with AI tools. I recently did an exercise out of curiosity. I wondered what would happen if I took a Biblical couple and ran them through a modern assessment test to determine their relationship's health. The results were interesting, and I wanted to share them with you.

Relationships are complex, are they not? If you have had any relationship experience, you have probably wondered how healthy your relationship was. Whether in marriage, friendships, or family bonds, commitment is needed to produce dedication, satisfaction, and shared values. So, it is no surprise that relationship experts have developed various tools to help couples assess their relational strength of commitment and find ways to improve it.

Believers, however, typically look to the Scripture to discover key areas for relationship growth and evaluation. Biblical principles and real-life couples provide insights we can apply to our relationships.

I wondered how well a model Biblical couple would fare in a modern relationship assessment, so I scoured the web for expert relationship assessment tools. I found three that were commonly used and well—known: the Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), the Revised Commitment Inventory (RCI), and the Interpersonal Commitment Scale (ICS). These assessments focus on relationship satisfaction, dedication versus obligation, and the strength of interpersonal bonds.

For my experiment, I evaluated the relationship between Ruth and Boaz. I imagined them stepping into a modern counselor’s office and agreeing to take all three assessments. The results gave me insight into what makes a relationship strong and what principles we can take away from their story and apply to our relationships.

Let me briefly introduce you to an overview of these three assessment tools. The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) is a simple yet effective tool for measuring how satisfied someone is in their relationship. It consists of a series of questions assessing a person’s overall happiness, sense of fulfillment, and trust in their partner. The responses are measured on a scale of 1 to 5; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Lower scores may indicate not only dissatisfaction in the relationship but possibly unresolved tensions as well. This assessment helps couples reflect on their level of happiness in the relationship, identify areas where emotional needs might not be met, and open up discussions about expectations.

The Revised Commitment Inventory (RCI) dives deeper into commitment by breaking it down into two key dimensions: dedication commitment and constraint commitment. Dedication commitment reflects a person’s emotional investment and willingness to put effort into the relationship. In contrast, constraint commitment measures how external factors (such as financial ties, social pressure, or children) influence a person’s decision to stay in the relationship. Higher scores on dedication commitment indicate a deep, voluntary connection, while higher scores on constraint commitment suggest obligations or pressures are keeping a couple together instead of genuine desire. This assessment helps couples distinguish between healthy commitment and commitment out of obligation. It is a great tool to address why they remain in the relationship.

The Interpersonal Commitment Scale (ICS) expands the idea of commitment beyond romantic relationships, measuring an individual’s commitment to friendships, family, and romantic partners separately. This tool allows for a broader view of how someone prioritizes relationships. The ICS provides separate scores for friendship, family, and romantic commitment. So, the scores help identify when someone prioritizes certain relationships over others, which could lead to conflict. It allows couples to see how their commitment to romantic relationships compares to their family and friendships and reveals if one partner invests more in external relationships than in their marriage.

Let’s imagine Ruth and Boaz as a couple in a modern counseling session. They sit down with a therapist who introduces them to the RAS, RCI, and ICS. Here’s the background of our subjects:

Ruth is a widow from Moab who chose to stay with her mother-in-law, Naomi, even after her husband died. She is known for her loyalty, humility, and strong work ethic. Boaz is a wealthy landowner in Bethlehem who shows kindness, integrity, and a sense of responsibility toward Ruth, eventually marrying her as her kinsman-redeemer.

When I ran their hypothetical assessment scores based on what we know about them from the Biblical text, they revealed that Ruth and Boaz feel fulfilled in their relationship and value each other. Ruth’s commitment was deeply rooted in loyalty and devotion, while Boaz’s commitment included a sense of duty due to his role as kinsman-redeemer. Their relationship is built on voluntary dedication rather than external pressures, and their scores indicated a strong emotional bond. The ICS would likely show high scores in family commitment for Ruth, as she prioritizes her relationship with Naomi and her extended family, while Boaz’s commitment may reflect both personal dedication and his sense of duty in the community. Their romantic commitment scores would be very high, reflecting their mutual care, trust, and long-term vision for their relationship.

I was impressed. Ruth and Boaz certainly scored well as one of the outstanding model couples in Scripture. God certainly knows how to pick them, doesn't He?

However, my experiment also revealed a few key relationship principles. First, commitment must be voluntary, not obligatory. Ruth chose Boaz not because she was forced to but because she saw his character and kindness. Likewise, Boaz chose to marry Ruth despite other potential suitors. Our relationships will last longer when we base our commitment on genuine love and desire rather than societal expectations.

Second, a strong relationship is built on mutual respect. Boaz respected Ruth’s integrity and hard work. Despite a vast difference in their social status, he never treated her as inferior. Ruth, in turn, respected Boaz’s leadership and generosity. A healthy relationship thrives on mutual admiration and recognizing each other’s worth. In such a dynamic, commitment feels natural and not forced.

Third, commitment extends beyond romance. Ruth’s commitment was not just to Boaz—it included Naomi, her late husband’s family, and her new faith. Boaz was committed to Ruth and maintaining justice and integrity in his community. A healthy romantic relationship cannot exist in isolation. A strong couple prioritizes family, friendships, and a shared purpose.

Fourth, actions speak louder than words. Ruth demonstrated her commitment by leaving Moab and working in Boaz’s fields, and Boaz demonstrated his commitment by taking the legal steps to redeem her. True commitment is seen in consistent actions, not just verbal promises. It’s the old adage, “Show me, don’t just tell me.”

Finally, healthy commitment includes both love and wisdom. Boaz did not rush into marrying Ruth. He followed the proper customs and ensured he operated with wisdom. Similarly, Ruth listened to Naomi’s wise counsel before approaching Boaz. Commitment is not just about passion—it also requires wisdom, patience, and careful decision-making.

While Ruth and Boaz’s love story took place thousands of years ago, the principles that strengthened their relationship are still relevant today. We can learn from their character and example. Modern assessment tools indicate that a couple following God’s plan will likely score high in commitment and have a great chance of a long-term relationship. 

And that does not surprise me at all.