25/05/2023
Harry Whittaker - Complete study on the Book of Ruth
27. Ruth and Naomi - Journey to Bethlehem - Ruth 1
The date of the book of Ruth cannot be fixed precisely but this does not matter greatly. It is sufficient to know that it was during the period of the judges. The genealogy at the end of chapter 4, if clear of omissions, suggests the time of Samson or maybe earlier when the growing Philistine oppression made itself felt against the southern tribes of Israel.
Possibly the famine in Israel which occasioned the rest of the story was brought about by Philistine depredation of the crops, for it would be a most unusual kind of famine that would afflict the land of Judah for so great a period as ten years and yet leave untouched the land of Moab less than thirty miles away. The fact too, that food and plenty were sought in Moab and not in Egypt, the traditional refuge in time of famine, suggests that the roads to Egypt were in the hands of unfriendly people. But these conclusions are at best tentative.
Whatever the cause of the famine, there can be little doubt that no bread in Bethlehem, the house of bread, was another indication of divine displeasure. Famine is a heavier punishment than pestilence (2 Sam. 24:14). God was chastening this people beloved for their fathers’ sakes (Lev. 26:19; Dt. 28:18; 1 Kgs. 8:37).
But one, Elimelech, chose not to endure the chastisement but to evade it. As in Abraham’s experience (Gen. 12:10), leaving the Land was a mistake to be paid for. Yet, by an impressive paradox, this was God’s way of seeking out Ruth the Moabitess, to add her to the family of His Beloved.
With his family, Elimelech migrated to safety and plenty in Moab, exchanging the land of God’s choice for a land of idols and ignorance. This was, who can doubt, a reprehensible policy and one which brought in its train a further danger of heathen marriages and their risk of idolatry. It has been surmised that the name Elimelech was originally Elimoloch — Moloch is my god — given to this child in Israel by a Moabite mother (Num. 25:1). Such an explanation, by no means impossible, makes the move to Moab easier to understand.
The Moabite marriages for Mahlon and Chilion actually took place in direct contravention of a divine commandment: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly” (Dt. 7:3).
And so it came about, for Elimelech did not survive for long. An old tree transplanted does not thrive. Thus, once again, the Word of truth re-emphasizes the folly of seeking marriages with those who do not share one’s faith in Christ. The fact that Orpah and Ruth proved to be vastly superior to the average Moabitish wife is only a further demonstration of the way in which God so very often shows his grace to men by bringing good out of their folly. “Let us do evil, that good may come” is a policy rightly and vigorously repudiated by the apostle Paul.
It is worth noticing that, although the marriages took place soon after the arrival in Moab and the death of Elimelech, there was no child to either marriage during the next 10 years (contrast 4:13). Then came the deaths of Mahlon and Chilion. Says one old writer: “Elimelech, like ripe fruit, fell down of his own accord; they, like green apples, were cudgelled off the tree.” Were these experiences a further sign of God’s displeasure?
It is a marvellous tribute to the character of Naomi that she was not very speedily forsaken by her sons’ wives, especially when the traditional relations between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law are considered. She had apparently inspired in the hearts of these two young women such a genuine affection that they were prepared not only to live their married lives in the same house, but to go on living with her after the loss of their husbands.
Return home!
News came that God was once again blessing Israel with plenty; and since Naomi herself had no roots in Moab there was nothing to hinder her return. Orpah and Ruth were bent on going with her; but soon, in words of thanks for past kindnesses, and with benediction for the future, Naomi bade them return. Then, as now in many countries, a young woman without family ties or a home of her own was a prey to all kinds of evil. So Naomi exhorted them to stay on in their own land with their own kith and kin so that in due time they might marry again.
The levirate law (Dt. 25:5-10) required that, when a man died without issue, his brother should take the widow and raise up children to bear his name. But Naomi urged that she herself was old and without husband. So, even if she were to re-marry and bear other sons, how grotesque it would be for Ruth and Orpah to wait for them until they were of marriageable age!
Thus she applied every possible discouragement. By this means she provided a none-too-easy problem for Bible readers ever since, as to whether she did well to urge her daughters-in-law to return home, or whether she ought not rather to have influenced them for their own good, to come with her to Israel and become good Israelites.
It was a big undertaking for these Moabite young women to venture into a land of strangers with no help other than what an aged and poverty-stricken mother-in-law could provide. And so they wept together.
Said Naomi: “It grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord (and not just bad luck; 1 Sam. 6:9) is gone out against me.”
Orpah, not so impressed with the religious issues as Ruth was, or maybe seeing the practical difficulties more clearly, at length chose to return, albeit with increased sadness at the parting.
Naomi now renewed her exhortation to Ruth, yet at the same time hoping that the advice would not be heeded. It was Elijah’s discouragement of Elisha over again, and Jesus’s calculated coldness to the Canaanite woman. “Return thou!” The words were spoken unselfishly, and perhaps to prove Ruth’s constancy, yet doubtless Naomi’s strong affection hoped fervently that this lovely daughter-in-law would hold to her purpose.
A true loyalty
And she did. Ruth was emphatic. In words of love and fidelity that will last for ever, she set aside every hardship and difficulty that might be mentioned:
“Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”
Never was more eloquent repetition! And (she might have added): “Where thou risest, I will rise”. Not even death will part these two.
Dominant in this resolve to be with Naomi was a determination to be a woman of Israel with her. Whereas Orpah was gone back to her Moabite people and to her Moabite god, Ruth insisted: “Thy God shall be my God.” And she meant it, for she sealed it by an oath sworn on the covenant name of the God of Israel: “The Lord do so to me and more also if ought but death part thee and me.” And Naomi was content that it should be so.
But how could Ruth declare with truth: “Thy God shall be my God”? Did not the Law lay it down that “a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation....” (Dt. 23:3)? Some have speculated that Ruth was the very first proselyte from Moab after the ten generations. However, the chronology hardly allows of this. More likely, that Mosaic prohibition applied only to males, for it is not certain that the masculine “Moabite” covered the womenfolk as well. It is even possible that the Lord was ready to make an exception to His law for such a one as Ruth. Parallel examples are not wanting.
Back in Bethlehem
Naomi’s arrival in Bethlehem caused a sensation. The women of the place were aghast at the change both in Naomi and her circumstances. Maybe there was something of ‘I told you so’ about the ej*******on: “Is this Naomi?”
Or perhaps what they said was: ‘This is Naomi!’ She had gone forth a prosperous woman, happy in her husband and two grown sons. The family had been one of some importance, for they were Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah, that is, they belonged to the distinguished family that sprang from Salmon, the prince of Judah who had married Rahab after the fall of Jericho. The family was closely connected with the hero Caleb after whose wife Bethlehem-Ephratah was named.
The name of Elimelech might also suggest prosperity, for practically every individual in the Bible whose name is compounded with the Hebrew word melech, king, is a person of some consequence.
But now Naomi was alone, apart from this comely stranger, and quite destitute. She had gone out full, so she declared, and returned empty. But how could she say so when she had Ruth by her side? Even so, she did well to speak no complaint against her dead husband. “Call me not Naomi (my pretty, my sweetie), call me Mara (bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.” And she told how her three-fold cord of comfort, not easily broken, was her stay no longer. Instead, only misery, “pressed down, shaken together, and running over”.
The divine name Shaddai, by which she chose to acknowledge the rebuke of God, may have been used in ironic allusion to its meaning in the promises to the Fathers about a multitudinous seed (Gen. 17:1,2; 28:3; 35:11; etc.). But in the poetical books “Shaddai” also means “Destroyer”. Perhaps that is what Naomi meant.
There is a marvellous dramatic irony about this, for, had she but known it, Naomi returned more full than when she went out. How could she realise that every word of God’s glorious promises to Abraham was going to be fulfilled through this helpless but devoted stranger returning with her from Moab? At this moment she saw herself only as an undefended prisoner-at-the-bar, with the powers of the universe arrayed against her both as counsel for the prosecution and as a judge on the bench: “The Lord testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me!” But before very long she was to marvel at the work of God on her behalf.
Notes
1.
The Hebrew Bible sets the Book of Ruth quite apart from Judges, but the LXX joins them together. So too does that first word: “And” (not “Now”).
Ruled may mean “began to judge” (as in 2 Sam. 15:10). In which case, like Judges 17-21, Ruth belongs to the generation after Joshua.
Went to sojourn. Would this be possible after Jud. 3:29,30? The early part of Jud. 3:14 has been suggested.
4.
The rabbis refer the curse in Ps. 109:14 to this verse.
6.
Visited his people. Referred to in Lk. 1:68.
9.
Find rest. This puts point to 3:1.
13.
It grieves me. Hebrew: mar; cp. v. 20.
15.
Her gods: Baal-Peor, Chemosh! (Josh. 24:15) — and the prospect of a husband.
17.
The Lord do so to me.... Reference to the sacrifice over which an oath is taken?
21.
Testified against me, by hard circumstance: Job 10:17.
28. Gleaning (Ruth 2)
The Bible narrative does not say what kind of home Naomi and Ruth at last found in Bethlehem, but Ruth’s suggestion that she go a-gleaning in the barley harvest seems to imply real poverty. Naomi would naturally wish to go too, not only to add to her meagre store but also because of her expressed fears that Ruth might come to some harm, as a stranger amongst harvesters of easy morals. The fact that Ruth went alone implies that Naomi was too old, or was worn out with recently experienced privations.
“I will glean....” said Ruth, “after him in whose sight I shall find grace.” This common expression is a charming Hebrew idiom for: ‘Grant me a favour, give me my request.’ Here, then, Ruth’s meaning is: ‘I will glean where I can get permission.’ Being a Moabitess, and unaccustomed to the laws of Israel, she would not realize that gleaning was a right of the poor for which no special permission was necessary. The poor had their mandate from God and God’s law in Deuteronomy 24:19.
Boaz of Bethlehem
It was then apparently by a lucky chance, but actually by the inscrutable design of Almighty God, that Ruth found herself gleaning in the fields of Boaz. Such are the ways of Providence! Strange that the entire redemptive purpose of God in Christ should hang on such an apparently trivial circumstance. So, at least, it would appear from a merely human point of view. Thus the discerning reader is bidden recognize that the dividing line between chance and design in human life is so fine that it cannot be drawn.
Boaz was near of kin to the dead Elimelech, and was evidently the leader of the tribe of Judah in those days, for was he not son of Salmon, the prince of Judah who had married Rahab the faithful? But Boaz is also described as “a mighty man of valour”, not a mighty man of wealth as in the Authorised Version. He deserves therefore to be classified with men like Gideon and Jephthah. His name is in striking contrast to that of Mahlon and Chilion, which mean ‘Sickness’ and ‘Pining’; for Boaz means: ‘In him in strength’.
Probably when Ruth and Naomi arrived in Bethlehem he was away from the town busily engaged, maybe, against the growing power of the Philistines, or in the struggle for freedom led by Othniel against Chushan-rishathaim. There are slight indications, such as the phrase “my daughter” (2:8), that suggest that Boaz was middle-aged and yet apparently and surprisingly unmarried. Or perhaps more probably, he was a childless widower. Such was the man in whose fields Ruth found herself gleaning.
There is an immediate clue to his character in his first recorded words — a hearty although conventional greeting to the reapers: “The Lord be with you”; and to this they gave ready response: “The Lord bless thee”.
Love at first sight — obviously
Boaz enquired with kindly curiosity after the stranger gleaning with his reapers, and was glad to encourage this young woman whose faith in the God of Israel and faithful friendship for Naomi had already made such an impression on the people of Bethlehem. After all, was not Boaz’s own mother just such an one as she?
The fact that in answering this enquiry about Ruth, the farm manager used the word ‘damsel, or girl’ shows that, even though Ruth had been a married woman for something like ten years, she still retained her youthful freshness.
Boaz was emphatic in his instructions that Ruth continue her gleaning in his fields, and nowhere else; for he not only admired her steadfast character, he also appreciated, perhaps more than she did, the risks that such a comely and unprotected girl ran among the none-too-scrupulous labourers in the corn fields. “Have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee?” he said.
To these assurances Boaz added all kinds of preferential treatment. Ruth was to avail herself freely of the refreshment provided for the workers as though she were one of his employees. And when a meal was provided in the middle of the day she was to be included in the circle of those who shared it. More than this, by himself handing her an ample supply of food he indicated to all his workers that she was under his own special protection.
Boaz also passed the word to all concerned that they were to allow her a special privilege in her gleaning so that she was actually among the reapers, and not behind them. He even added the further instruction that they were to make her gleaning all the more rewarding by deliberately dropping a handful out of the sheaves right in her path. There must have been a charming ingenuousness about Ruth not to see through a scheme as transparent as this was.
In her response to all this kindness Ruth showed neither false pride nor cringing self-pity. She could have misinterpreted Boaz’s motive, and have acknowledged his generosity coldly. On the other hand, in an attempt to make the most of the situation, she could have told a maudlin tale of adversity and poverty. Instead, marvelling quietly that a man of Boaz’s station should take notice of her at all, she thanked him frankly for his help to one so needy: ‘Thou hast comforted me....thou hast spoken friendly unto thine handmaid — though I be not like unto one of thine handmaidens,” she added lest the wrong construction be put on the ambiguous term she used.
One reason (though not the only one) for the concern of Boaz for Ruth’s welfare was her exceptional devotion to her destitute mother-in-law, and her quite surprising faith in the God of Israel:
Boaz answered and said unto her: “It hath fully been showed me all that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law since the death of thine husband: and how thou hast left thy father and mother, and the land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which thou knewest not heretofore. The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”
What is particularly impressive about these words is their sustained allusion to God’s promises to Abraham: “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kin-dred and from thy father’s house....I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward....The Lord God of heaven which took me from my father’s house and from the land of my nativity....” Thus Boaz was more prophetic than he knew, for it was through this winsome Gentile, whose only strength was faith and fidelity, that those far-reaching promises to Abraham were to be fulfilled.
A good day’s work
Never was such a prosperous day’s gleaning. So bulky were the combined fruits of Ruth’s industry and the covert generosity of Boaz that she was unable to carry home what she had gathered. Instead she must needs spend the last hour of the day winnowing all of it. Picture her, then, utterly tired out, but happy in her anticipation of Naomi’s glad surprise, as she staggered wearily home burdened with half a hundred weight of barley. She carried also the remains of the lavish meal of roasted corn which Boaz had handed to her personally. With characteristic unselfishness she had saved some for Naomi at home, but the best of all her gleaning was the evident regard of a good man.
A redeemer
When Naomi learned the good fortune the day had brought, with a woman’s quiet intuition she immediately perceived a deeper and happier intent in Boaz than that of mere generosity to one destitute and deserving. “Blessed be he of the Lord” she said, “who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead.” By this she meant that God besides being gracious to Ruth and herself was also showing kindness to the dead Elimelech: “The man is near of kin unto us”, that is, he is a redeemer for us.
This term go’el calls for explanation. It described the nearest relative on whom devolved the responsibilities of redeeming an inheritance which through ill-fortune had passed out of the family. Another duty was that of continuing the family name of a near kinsman who had died childless, and also of avenging the blood of a kinsman slain in a feud. The first two of these, both appropriate in Ruth’s case, help to explain why the Law of Moses assigned a double portion of inheritance to the firstborn son, since he would have to take on himself most of these responsibilities. It would seem, then, that Naomi had already considered the possibility of Ruth finding a go’el in Bethlehem; by enquiry, if not be knowledge of the family, she had already ascertained that one of Elimelech’s near kinsmen, and therefore Ruth’s, was Boaz. It will be seen by and by that the same thought had also been pondered in the mind of Boaz himself.
Ruth gleaned in the fields of Boaz right through the barley harvest, and the wheat harvest as well — with intermission, a period of two months or more. Then Naomi came to an important though reluctant decision. Since Boaz was so evidently in love with Ruth, why did he not, more promptly, seek to make her his wife? Possibly he was deterred by the knowledge that he was not the nearest of near kinsmen with the right of redemption. Or, and perhaps more probably, he found it impossible to believe that the young and comely Ruth would wish to have as husband one so much older than herself.
Whatever the explanation, Naomi felt Ruth should now claim what was her right, for even though she were a Moabitess, the levirate law of marriage applied in her case by virtue of the fact that her first husband was an Israelite. Perhaps the biggest problem in this story of Ruth is to explain why Naomi chose such a method by which Ruth might claim her right of marriage, for it involved a serious risk of scandal throughout the town, with a distinct possibility of evil consequences for both Ruth and Boaz. Why, one wonders, did not Naomi herself act as go-between in this delicate matter, or devise some other means less open to misinterpretation?
Can it be that behind this charming but risky procedure recommended by Naomi there is some local custom of the time, knowledge of which has disappeared? Or is it possible that by such a device Naomi betrayed the flaw in her character, that she had the best possible aspirations on Ruth’s behalf but lacked the faith and patience to let God bring these hopes to fruition in His own way? One hesitates to adopt such a conclusion, but the possibility of it should not be excluded. Whatever the explanation, Naomi’s plan resulted in one of the most delightful stories in the Bible.
Notes
4.
The Lord be with you must mean, in this context: ‘The Lord give you a good harvest.’ The words come with that meaning in Ps. 129:7,8; Jud. 6:12; and also in a more subtle sense in 2 Th. 3:16; Lk. 1:28.
7.
Tarried; i.e. she first did the chores at home.
9.
After them, the other girls who were gleaning. The pronoun is feminine.
10.
Paraphrase: Why do you grant me my request and these privileges when I am a perfect stranger?
12.
Wings. An allusion to the cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat.
15.
Among the sheaves. Yet another privilege.
Reproach her not. AVm shows what Boaz was afraid of.
16.
Let fall also....Literally: Ye shall plunder a plunder for her from the handfuls.
22.
That they (masc.) meet thee not. Again, AVm shows the implied meaning.
29. Proposal of Marriage (Ruth 3)
It was the night of the winnowing of the barley, after the threshing during the day. Winnowing was customarily left for a moonlit night because about sunset there is in Palestine a brisk breeze from the sea such as is needed to facilitate separation of the chaff.
The winnowing was done this way. Using a large shovel called a fan (Mt. 3:12), the threshed mixture of corn and chaff was thrown up into the air straight into the wind. The lighter chaff was caught by the breeze and deposited some distance away, but the heavier barley kernels fell straight to the ground. Thus chaff and grain were sorted out into two well-defined heaps.
This done, both custom and self-interest required that the owner of the grain should sleep on the threshing floor to guard from theft the heap of grain, now more valuable than ever.
So when the winnowing was done and the harvest celebration concluded, Boaz wrapped himself in his thick cloak, and with a blanket across his legs lay down to sleep by the heap of corn.
It was after this that Ruth, anointed and arrayed as for a festive occasion, came quietly to the place where Boaz lay, and uncovering his feet she lay down under the rug as though in the position of a supplicant. Thus she preferred her claim to right of marriage.
For a while Boaz slept on but not so Ruth, who must have realized with an excitement difficult to control that her destiny hung on the outcome of the next few hours.
Startled from sleep
About midnight Boaz, moving in his sleep, became aware that he was not alone. Startled into wakefulness, he bent forward and drew back the rug and there crouched Ruth the Moabitess. It calls for little effort of the imagination to picture the staid bachelor’s embarrassed surprise as he identified the recumbent form close to his feet. Ruth hastened to explain:
An unconventional proposal
‘I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid: for thou art a go’el, thou art my redeemer.’
She now used the word “handmaid” unashamedly and, in contrast to the former occasion, free from all qualification, for she was now inviting Boaz to marry her. It was a kind of leap-year proposal. Such is the meaning of the idiom she now made use of.
In the light of her experiences in the harvest field Ruth surely knew the kind of reception she would meet with. Once again Boaz gave her the cordial harvest greeting: “Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter”, this time with the implied assurance that ‘God will give you a good harvest, for I intend to marry you.’
Far from behaving in any condescending or patronizing way towards her, he proceeded to thank her sincerely for honouring him in this way:
“Thou hast showed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.” Ruth’s kindness in remaining loyal to the aged Naomi was now matched by that which Boaz chose to think she was bestowing on himself, in ignoring the disparity in age and seeking him as a husband in preference to some other near kinsman.
He therefore promised with a solemn oath — ‘As the Lord liveth’ — that he would certainly take her for his wife if the go’el with prior claim was willing to waive his right. From the fact that Boaz knew himself to be not the first with the right to redeem, it may be inferred that, eager to marry Ruth, he had already made enquiry who might have a prior claim to this charming stranger. But evidently he had been deterred from further action by the disparity in their ages.
“And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.” That word “city” is really (as AVm) ‘gate’, and must mean either that the city elders who sat in the gate were already aware of Ruth’s situation and were satisfied regarding her character; or, since the city gate was where so much local gossip was exchanged, Boaz meant: ‘Even Bethlehem’s gossiping women have nothing against you!’
Criteria
It should be observed here that the primary reason for Boaz’s complete willingness to marry Ruth was not the she had a pretty face or a roguish smile or beautiful hair or a comely figure, nor that she was a first-rate housekeeper or had a talented brain; and certainly not that she had a good bank balance. It was her good character, her fidelity, her soberness, her kindness, her industry, and her faith in the God of Israel, which gave her beauty in his eyes. Yet how many marriages have either come to grief or have resolved themselves into banality destitute of the idealism which makes true marriage, because founded in the first instance on superficial personal attraction, rather than on the really worthwhile qualities of good character and spiritual outlook.
Circumspect behaviour
It would not have been wise either for Ruth to find her way home then at midnight, nor for Boaz to accompany her. There was too great a risk either to Ruth’s person or to the reputation of both. So she slept, serene and content, at his feet until the first sign of dawn, when she prepared to return to Naomi.
But Boaz would not allow her to go away empty. Converting her cloak into an improvised form of sack, he loaded her with six measures of barley, almost more than she could carry. There was a double purpose in this. First, to disarm the suspicion of anyone who might see Ruth coming away from the threshing floor. He sought to shield her from the calumny of slanderous tongues. And, secondly, the six measures were to indicate both to Ruth and Naomi that the “rest” Naomi had promised was night at hand — for rest is always associated in Scripture with the number seven.
Notes
1.
Rest for thee. Explained by 1:9.
4.
When he lieth down. There is no other sign in Scripture of this custom of guarding the winnowed grain.
8.
Afraid — of what? The Hebrew word means this.
Turned himself. Better: he reached out.
12.
There is. Fairly emphatic. It means that Boaz quite definitely knew.
13.
Lie down. Ruth was about to go away. But Boaz knew it would be safer to stay till first dawn.
15.
She went should read: he went. Here is resolution. He meant to lose no time.
16.
Who art thou? There is a problem here. Was the light so dim that Ruth could not be recognized? But surely Naomi was expecting her.
30. Happy Ever After (Ruth 4)
Boaz lost no time in putting his purpose and promise into effect. Sunrise found him sitting in the gate of Bethlehem until there should pass that way the (unnamed) near kinsman. According to the rabbis, he was Elimelech’s brother and Boaz’s uncle. Calling him aside, Boaz also quickly assembled a committee of ten of the elders of the town who would authenticate by their witness any agreement that might be reached.
Then he proceeded: ‘Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, hath sold the parcel of land which was our brother Elimelech’s. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it. But if not, then tell me that I may know: for there is none to redeem it besides thee; and I am after thee’, that is, with the right of redemption. The go’el in this instance had two responsibilities: the redemption of the land which had been Elimelech’s and which might even have been disposed of before the migration to Moab; and also there was the duty of continuing the family of the dead Elimelech and Mahlon, according to the levirate law.
Boaz, in delicacy, put the smaller matter first, and met with immediate readiness on the part of the go’el. Yes, he would redeem the land, he was willing enough to buy it, and add it to his own inheritance until the year of jubilee restored it to the family which originally owned it. He was the more willing to do this since there was no immediate prospect that there would be any other heir upon whom the property might devolve; so there was a fair chance that it might become his for good.
But this very question Boaz now pointedly insisted on: “What day thou buyest the field....thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.”
This however the kinsman was not at all prepared to do, “lest (he said) I mar mine own inheritance”. Why this vague excuse? It seems likely that such a levirate marriage involved also the maintenance of Ruth and Naomi, as well as Ruth’s child that should be born; and the added burden of these extra persons to his household was more than he was prepared to undertake. Or it may be that he was arguing from the dismal history of Elimelech’s family. The migration to Moab, and the Moabitish marriages which ensued, had all been visited with God’s displeasure. For him to continue that tradition by marrying the Moabitess would be perhaps to invite an extension of divine wrath to himself and his family.
This would also explain, maybe, why an obviously attractive young woman like Ruth had received no other offers of marriage since her appearance in Bethlehem.
Whatever the explanation, the kinsman now emphatically and formally withdrew from his rights and responsibilities. By that same act he also withdrew his name from Holy Scripture and from the high honour of appearing in the direct ancestry of the Messiah. His readiness to abandon his prerogative in these matters would be made the more easy by the absence of Ruth herself from this discussion.
“Lest I mar mine own inheritance”, this faithless fellow had said. But by his feebleness he did mar his own inheritance, for the fact that the Messianic line came through Boaz and Ruth fairly plainly implies that this kinsman’s line ceased. In deciding selfishly he decided badly.
Shame on the selfish
In Deuteronomy 25:7-10, the Law required that the go’el who thus declined to fulfil his duties to his deceased kinsman should be publicly shamed. In the gate of the city he was to be spat upon by the woman he refused to aid. However, Boaz had carefully refrained from bringing Ruth with him. So there remained only the symbolic transfer of right of redemption of the property.
This was signified appropriately by the go’el taking off his sandal and handing it to Boaz as the next near-kinsman. The shoe was an easily understood symbol of a man’s right of possession, his right to walk on the redeemed land. “Over Edom will I cast out my shoe” (Ps. 60:8) is David’s phrase for annexation of Edom after his brilliant victory against the combined forces of his enemies. When the prodigal returned home one of the signs of his reinstatement with further right to inheritance was “shoes on his feet”. “Arise, walk through the land, in the length of it and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee” was God’s emphatic instruction to Abraham.
A blessed marriage
Thus Boaz at last became go’el for both Naomi and Ruth, and the entire transaction was settled in formal legal style. All who were present added their witness and their blessings, and all the people that were in the gate joined the elders in saying:
“We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: and let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman.”
They spoke better than they knew, for indeed it was through the offspring of this union of Ruth and Boaz, through David the son of Jesse that God did build the house of Israel. Through his worthy descendant, Jesus (Mt. 1:5), Boaz has truly become famous in Bethlehem.
The allusion to Pharez whom Tamar bare unto Judah is also highly appropriate, for not only was this the only other levirate union mentioned in the Bible, but the grudging acknowledgement by Judah that Gentile Tamar had such a right of marriage is closely paralleled by the attitude of the unnamed kinsman in this Book of Ruth.
The marriage duly took place and, by contrast with the childless years of Ruth’s first marriage, the Lord soon blessed her with a son. What clearer demonstration that it is the Lord who gives and who withholds. The women of Bethlehem celebrated the birth of Ruth’s son as a gift from God to Naomi:
“Blessed by the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter-in-law which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.”
In what sense could the child Obed be a go’el for Naomi, for now she needed neither avenger of blood nor redeemer of property? The words are surely recorded because of their implied prophecy that through Obed the line of Elimelech and Naomi and also of Boaz would be continued in a more certain fashion than through seven sons. Precisely how this would be is indicated by the immediate citation of the family genealogy from Pharez right down to David, the one whose worth was preferred about that of the other seven sons of Jesse.
And through David came Jesus, which is called Christ. “Behold my servant (Obed means servant) whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth.” Thus for all time the name of Ruth stands with special honour in the genealogy of the Son of God, and the Book of Ruth continues to proclaim striking lessons. It underlines the folly of marriage with those who do not share the blessing of God’s covenant. It also shows how God rewards those who with singleness of mind disregard the attractions of a favourable worldly marriage in order to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Here also, for the thankful contemplation of the reverent reader, is ample demonstration of how God can and does overrule for good the bad decisions made by His servants in their weakness. Such is the divine condescension to human frailty.
Notes
1.
Sat him down. Excavations of ancient city walls in Palestine have revealed signs of stone benches built into the wall of the city gate.
Such an one. LXX: Hidden one! Does this mean he had been deliberately keeping out of the way? Or is it put this way to stress how his name is blotted out of the Book of Life?
5.
LXX: And thou must buy her also. No picking and choosing which duties to take over and which not (and so also in the ecclesia). Even if Ruth had been married to the younger brother, the rights of the family would come through because Orpah stayed in Moab a Moabitess, whereas Ruth was here in Bethlehem as Israelite.
11.
Build. There is here a common play on the word for “son”: compare 2 Sam. 7:13.
12.
Tamar and Rahab and Ruth are three Gentile brides all coming close together in Messiah’s genealogy.
17.
Why should the son be called Obed, servant? According to the levirate law, Obed should have reckoned as the son of Chilion; yet there is no hint of this. Perhaps this is because there was no other child born to Boaz, and therefore Obed reckoned as his. Alternatively, it could be argued that the levirate law applied strictly: “if brethren dwell together”, (Dt. 25:5), which was certainly not the case with the family of Elimelech.
20.
In Mt. 1 Boaz is the tenth generation from Abraham: Dt. 23:3.
22.
This is the first mention of David. If, as seems probable, the author of Judges and Ruth was Samuel, then the last word he wrote was an expression of faith that the youth he had anointed would one day be King of Israel.
31. “Types of Us” (1 Cor. 10:6)
Whilst there is no known indication in the New Testament that the events and characters in the Book of Ruth are of any special typical significance, quite a number of details suggest that such a view is not out of place. Certainly, with Paul’s exposition of the allegory of Sarah and Hagar to teach a lesson of humility it would be folly to assert dogmatically that no such typical significance either was intended or is to be found in the story of Ruth.
The following tentative outline suggestions may be of interest:
Elimelech ( = “My God is King”), leaving Bethlehem in time of famine to seek security in Moab is a type of God’s people, Israel, throwing off God’s authority and abandoning the Source of Life (Bethlehem = “The House of Bread”) to join with those who are shut out from the people of God (Deut. 23:3). Israel, God’s firstborn, became through apostasy illegitimate (cp. the origins of Moab: Gen. 19:36,37). Mahlon and Chilion ( = “weak” and “pining”) illustrate the state of Israel’s faith.
The deaths of Elimelech and his sons can be interpreted as the visitation of divine wrath on Israel, culminating in the eventual scattering of the nation (cp. Jesus’ cursing of the fig-tree).
Naomi represents the faithful remnant in Israel returning to God.
In Orpah and Ruth are figured two classes of Gentiles — those who hear the gospel but turn away from it, and those who thankfully acknowledge their privilege in being allowed to break old associations in order to join “the Israel of God”. (But note: the break with the old life must be made.) Naomi’s discouragement of Ruth has its counterpart in the understandable reluctance of the early Jewish preachers of the gospel to include the Gentiles in their ministrations: e.g. Peter before he went to Cornelius.
Naomi’s poverty in her return and her lament that her lot is bitter (“Marah”) suggest that even the devout Israelite in accepting divine forgiveness must acknowledge that at best he can only come empty-handed, driven by bitter experience to acknowledge the unwelcome fact.
The name and character of Boaz ( = “Strength”) makes him fit the type of the Man whom God “made strong for himself”. “When we were yet without strength....Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6).
Ruth’s gleaning foreshadows the Gentiles’ eagerness for the spiritual “crumbs” (Matt. 15:27) from Christ’s work. The special portion given her anticipates the spiritual food and drink provided in Christ and also Gentiles taking Israel’s place of privilege.
The form of Boaz’s blessing upon Ruth suggests that the godly Gentile has become seed of Abraham. “If ye are Christ’s then are ye (Gentiles) Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Naomi’s recognition of Boaz as the “redeemer” corresponds to the acknowledgement by godly Jews of Jesus as the Messiah.
All these things happened at barley and wheat harvest, i.e. at Passover (the death of Christ) and Pentecost (the time of the giving of the Holy Spirit). Does the threshing of the barley represent the sufferings of Christ? If so, Boaz’s sleep by the heap of corn at the end of his labour would typify death and resurrection. (How many more instances in Scripture of sleep and waking being a figure of death and resurrection? Gen. 2:21; 15:12; Ps. 5:3; Jer. 31:26; Dan. 8:18; 10:9-11; Lk. 9:32; Rev. 1:17.)
Ruth’s coming — washed, anointed and clothed in her best — to claim the right of marriage shows the Gentiles to be acceptable now through the death of Christ, but they must come washed from their sin, anointed with the Spirit and arrayed in garments of righteousness. That this was done at night at the threshing floor shows (like the deep sleep of Adam that he might receive his bride) that apart from the death of Christ this acceptance of both godly Jew and Gentile would be impossible.
‘Lie down again.’ These two sleeps at the feet of Boaz correspond with (a) baptism - the figurative burial with Christ, and (b) the sleep of death in him until the day of glorious resurrection.
The six measures of meal intimate that the perfect rest of God is near. Ruth gained more by the free gift than all her laborious application to duty could ever bring her! But what is the meaning behind the fact that these six measures represent just twice what was waved before the Lord on the resurrection morning — according to the Rabbis (Lev. 23:10,11), and also twice what was used in the spiritual baking in the parable (Matt. 13:33)?
The other kinsman disowning his right of marriage is a signal intimation that Moses, with first opportunity, could not by his Law bring redemption. This near kinsman who does not redeem echoes the failure of the Son of Judah (Gen. 38) in a comparable responsibility. Hence the tracing of the genealogy back to Pharez (Gen. 38:29; Ruth 4:18).
Ruth’s marriage to her as yet unmarried “redeemer” has its counterpart, of course, in the Marriage of the Lamb. The details of the greeting and blessing accorded to Ruth again suggest the fulfilment of the ancient Messianic promises given to Jacob and to Judah. The mention of Pharez especially is a reminder of the “Seed” who was grudgingly acknowledged.
The child of the marriage, Obed, has a name which means ‘Serving’. The glorified saints of God are made happy in continuing service to the one who redeemed them. In the figure of Revelation “they serve him day and night in his temple”.
from Judges and Ruth
http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/haw/judges_ruth/index.html
