{"id":13,"date":"2017-09-04T14:20:18","date_gmt":"2017-09-04T12:20:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=13"},"modified":"2017-10-13T19:53:29","modified_gmt":"2017-10-13T17:53:29","slug":"the-book-of-ruth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/09\/04\/the-book-of-ruth\/","title":{"rendered":"The Book of Ruth"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. The Hebrew Bible<\/p>\n

The Hebrew Bible has three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the Hebrew canon, Ruth is found in the third division, the Ketuvim<\/span> or the Writings; and it is the <\/span>fifth book of the third division. It is also one of the five books known collectively as the Megilloth<\/span>, meaning \u201cscrolls,\u201d which are read in the synagogue on five holy occasions during the year: Song <\/span>of Songs (Song of Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. (See table 8<\/a>.) The Song of Solomon, or the Song of Songs, is read during the Feast of Passover. The Book of Ruth is read durin<\/span>g the Feast of Weeks. The Book of Lamentations is read during the Ninth of Av<\/em>, which is a fast day of mourning over the fall of Jerusalem. The Book of Ecclesiastes is read at the Feast of Tabernacles.<\/span> The Book of Esther is read during the Feast of Lots.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Table 8. The Megilloth and Correlating Holy Days<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Book<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Holy Day When Read in the Synagogue<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Song of Songs (Song of Solomon)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Feast of Passover<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ruth<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Feast of Weeks (Shavuot<\/span> or Shavuos<\/span>, or Pentecost)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lamen<\/span>tations<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ninth of Av<\/em> (Mourning for the Fall of Jerusalem)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ecclesiastes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot<\/span> or Sukkos<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Esther<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Feast of Lots (<\/em>Purim<\/span>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

By rabbinic tradition, the Talmud<\/span> states that the Book of Ru<\/span>th once was the first book of the third division, the Writings or Ketuvim<\/span>:<\/p>\n

The Ketuvim is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, the Scroll of Esth<\/span>er, Ezra, and Chronicles. As for the view that Job lived at the time of Moses, should not the Book of Job come first? We do not begin [with] a record of suffering. Is not Ruth also a record of suffering? It is suffering that has a happy ending, for so Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was her name called Ruth? Because David issued fr<\/span>om her, which satiated the Holy One, blessed be He, with songs and praise.5<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

According to the Tosaphot<\/span>, the supplemental rabbinic writings:<\/p>\n

Job too has a happy ending. The answer, Ruth\u2019s ending has consequences for Israel. How do we answer? The Holy One, blessed be He, redoub<\/span>led Job\u2019s reward only through removing him from the world.6<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. The Septuagint<\/p>\n

The Septuagint<\/span> is the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the third century b.c. Originally, in the Septuagint<\/span>, the Book of Ruth was considered as an appendix to the Book <\/span>of Judges, and so it was not given a title of its own. However, in later editions of the Septuagint<\/span>, the phrase telos ton kriton<\/span> was inserted, which means \u201cthe end of Judges,\u201d thus indicating a break <\/span>between the two books, Judges and Ruth. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, states that Ruth was put at the end of the Book of Judges and that Judges and Ruth were actually at one time a singl<\/span>e book. At any rate, it shows that the Hebrew-speaking Jews and the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews had different views as to the place of Ruth in the canon, with Hellenistic Jews following the order as found in the <\/span>Septuagint<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. The English Bible<\/p>\n

The English Bible today follows the order of the Septuagint<\/span>; and, therefore, Ruth comes after the Book of Judges and serves as that book\u2019s third appendix. (The other two appendice<\/span>s are part of the text of the Book of Judges, starting with chapter 17<\/a>.) The first two appendices provide a negative picture of the spiritual condition of the people. The Book of Ruth provides a posit<\/span>ive side and shows that there were those who did keep the Law of Moses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>E. The Historic Background<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. The Judges<\/p>\n

Ruth 1:1<\/a> states that the story takes place during the time of the Judges; and later in the book, the author shows the story takes place during and after a time of famine. If this was the<\/span> same famine as that mentioned in Judges 6:3\u20134<\/a>, then the story would have taken place during the time of Gideon, which is probably the best fit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. The Books of Judges and of Ruth<\/p>\n

Eight comparisons and\/or contrasts between the Book of Judges and the Book of Ruth may be made. (See table 9<\/a>.) First, the Book of Judges highlights immorality; the B<\/span>ook of Ruth shows fidelity, righteousness, and purity. Second, the Book of Judges shows idolatry; the Book of Ruth shows the worship of the only God. Third, the Book of Judges shows decline and disloyalty; the Book of Ruth shows devotion. Fourth, the Book o<\/span>f Judges shows lust; but the Book of Ruth shows love. Fifth, the Book of Judges shows war, but the Book of Ruth shows peace. Sixth, the Book of Judges shows cruelty, but the Book of Ruth shows kindness. Seventh, the Book of Judges shows disobedience leading to judgment; the Book of Ruth shows obedience leading to blessing. Eighth, the Book of Judges shows spiritual darkness; the Book of Ruth, spiritual light. Thus, the story of Ruth is a fitting conclus<\/span>ion to the Book of Judges, showing a contrast between the tribes of Judah (King David\u2019s forefather) and Benjamin (King Saul\u2019s forefather) and a contrast between Bethlehem (David\u2019s birthplace) and Gibeah (Saul\u2019s birthplace). It serves as an introduction to the Books of Samuel and provides the family background for King David.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. The Moabites<\/p>\n

Ruth was a Moabite. The Moabites were descendants of Moav<\/span>, Moab, who was the son of Lot through his older daughter (Gen. 19:37<\/a>). Descendants of this son of Lot occupied the plateau dir<\/span>ectly east of and along the southern half of the Dead Sea, and they became prominent in Israel\u2019s history during the time of the Exodus.<\/p>\n

Years of enmity characterized the relations between Israel and M<\/span>oab. At the time when Israel passed through the Moabites\u2019 territory, the Amorites had taken control. These Amorites were defeated by Israel under Moses. Balak, the king of Moab at the time of Moses, did not try to stop Israel militarily as did the Edomites, but he<\/span> did try to have Balaam curse the Jews (Num. 22\u201324<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Table 9. Contrasts Between the Books of Judges and Ruth<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Book of Judges<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Book of Ruth<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Highlights immorality<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Highlights fidelity, righteousness, and purity<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Portrays idolatry<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Portrays the worship of only <\/span>God<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Shows decline and disloyalty<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shows devotion<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Reveals lust<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reveals love<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Shows war<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shows peace<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Portrays cruelty<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Portrays kindness (<\/em>chesed<\/span>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Shows disobedience leading to judgment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shows obedience leadi<\/span>ng to blessing<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Shows spiritual darkness<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shows spiritual light<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In Numbers 25:1\u20139<\/a>, there were Moabite women who succeeded in seducing Israel at Baal-Peor, resulting in the judgment of Israel. In Deuter<\/span>onomy 2:9<\/a>, in spite of that enmity, God forbade Israel from warring against Moab, since the territory had been assigned to Moab by God Himself.<\/p>\n

In subsequent history, the Moabites were a major source <\/span>of Israel\u2019s troubles. For example, for eighteen years, the Moabites subjugated Israel under Eglon (Judg. 3<\/a>). Later, King Saul fought against them (1 Sam. 14:47<\/a>). In the early days of David, David had <\/span>friendly relationships with the Moabites; and when Saul was pursuing him, David took his parents to the King of Moab for safe keeping (1 Sam. 22:3\u20134<\/a>). A famous archeological stone, the Moabite Stone, <\/span>was discovered in Dibon, and it gives information about the conflict between Moab and the Dynasty of Omri of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.<\/p>\n

The chief god of the Moabites was Chemosh (cf. Num. 21:29<\/a>),<\/span> whose worship included human sacrifice (2 Kg. 3:26\u201327<\/a>). They also worshipped the wife of Chemosh, Ashtar.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

4. The Law of the Levirate Marriage<\/p>\n

The law of levirate marriage is found in Deuteronomy 25:5\u201310<\/a>. The term \u201clevirate marriage\u201d comes from the Latin word levir<\/em>, which means \u201cbrother-in-law.\u201d According to the Mosaic Law, a childless widow\u2019s brother-in-law is obligated to marry her and father a son for her in order that his dead brother\u2019s name would continue. This obligation was only if the widow were childless. What happens in the Book of Ruth does not follow the strict laws of levirate marriage. The key root yavam<\/span>, meaning, \u201cto perform the duty of the brother-in-law,\u201d does not appear in the context of Ruth. Furthermore, the Book of Ruth situation does not involve a brother-in-law as such. In fact, Naomi bemoans or laments the fact that she cannot produce any more sons to take that role (1:11<\/a>) for her widowed daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

There is a broader application, which is that of the gaal<\/span>, meaning \u201cto redeem\u201d or \u201cto act as a kinsman,\u201d with goel<\/span> (kinsman-redeemer) being the nor<\/span>mal noun form. What happens in the Book of Ruth is the application of the law of redemption of Leviticus 25<\/a>, which has the root that is used in the text of Ruth. What happens in this book deals with t<\/span>he property that people had lost through indenture but that could be recovered by the payment of a fee, usually by the owner or by relatives. The issue of property is detailed in Leviticus 25:24\u201334<\/a>, b<\/span>ut marriage was not specifically a part of that Levitical law of redemption. However, an application to marriage seems to be assumed in Ruth (4:5<\/a>) even though such does not actually appear in the Mosa<\/span>ic Law. This case appears to be an extension of the law accomplished by combining the law of redemption with the law of levirate marriage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>5. The Kinsman-Redeemer<\/p>\n

There were three obligations of the kinsman-redeemer. First, he was to redeem his brother and his brother\u2019s inheritance according to his ability if it was poverty that compelle<\/span>d his brother to sell himself into slavery or to dispose of his land. Second, he was to serve as the avenger of the family blood. Third, he was to raise up a successor to his brother if his brother died without leaving a son. The first and third obligations of redeeming land and providing an heir play a role in the Book of Ruth.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>F. Structure and Style<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Structure<\/p>\n

The structure contains four basic units, with the story played out in four scenes, essentially one in each chapter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. Style<\/p>\n

There are two stylistic characteristics. First, the book is primarily a dialogue. It contains a total of eighty-five verses of which fifty-six verses are dialogue. Second, there is gender con<\/span>fusion in the text where there is gender disagreement between subject and verb. This is only visible when reading the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>G. Contributions of the Book of Ruth to Systematic Theology<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Theology Proper<\/p>\n

Theology Proper is the Doctrine of God, to which this book contributes seven things. First, it teaches God\u2019s Sovereignty and His control over the affairs of men (1:6<\/a>, 4:13<\/a>); eight t<\/span>imes in the book it speaks of God\u2019s activity. Second, the book uses three names of God: the tetragrammaton, YHVH<\/span>, is found seventeen times in this short book; Elohim<\/span>, meaning \u201cGod,\u201d is found three tim<\/span>es; Shaddai<\/span>, meaning \u201cAlmighty,\u201d is found twice. Third, this book teaches that God is free to act in grace (1:8<\/a>). Fourth, it teaches God is also free to act in judgment (1:13<\/a>, 1:20<\/a>, and 1:21<\/a>). Fifth, <\/span>it teaches Jehovah is uniquely the God of Israel (1:16\u201317<\/a>). Sixth, it teaches about the providence of God in the lives of individuals. Seventh, it teaches the love of God by showing His care for widow<\/span>s.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>2. Christology<\/p>\n

Christology is the Doctrine of the Son. This book contributes to Christology in that it continues the tracing of the messianic line. Ruth becomes one of the Gentile mothers of the Messi<\/span>ah, later mentioned in Matthew 1:5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another contribution it makes in the area of Christology is the concept and typology of the kinsman-redeemer. For a person to be a kinsman-redeemer, he had to meet <\/span>five requirements. (See table 10<\/a>.) First, he must be a near kinsman and a blood relative (Ruth 2:1<\/a> and 2:20<\/a>). Second, he must be willing to pay the price (2:8<\/a> and 3:11<\/a>). Third, he must be able to do s<\/span>o (2:1<\/a>). Fourth, he must be free himself. Fifth, he must have the price of redemption (2:1<\/a>). In fulfillment of the typology, Jesus was a near kinsman to humanity in general (Jn. 1:14<\/a>; Phil. 2:1\u201311<\/a>, pa<\/span>rticularly, verses 7\u20138<\/a>); and He was a near kinsman to Jewish people in particular (Heb. 2:12\u201318<\/a>, particularly, verse 14<\/a>). Jesus was willing (Matt. 20:28<\/a>; Jn. 3:16<\/a>, 10:11<\/a>, and 10:17\u201328<\/a>). Jesus was able<\/span> (Heb. 7:25<\/a>). Jesus was free Himself (2 Cor. 5:21<\/a>). And finally, Jesus possessed the price of redemption: innocent human blood (Is. 53:5<\/a>; Jn. 1:29<\/a>; 1 Pet. 1:18\u201319<\/a> and 1:24<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Soteriology<\/p>\n

Concerning Soteriology, the Doctrine of Salvation, this book teaches the fact of Gentile salvation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>4. Israelology<\/p>\n

Israelology is the Doctrine of Israel. The name of Israel appears five times in this book. Furthermore, the book provides examples of people living at that time of the Judges who were k<\/span>eepers of the Law of Moses. The book teaches that God is the covenant-keeping God. Finally, it provides the historical background to the Davidic Covenant (God\u2019s covenant with David) and the Kingdom of David.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Table 10. The Requirements of the Kinsman-Redeemer and Messiah\u2019s Qualifications<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Requirement<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ref. in Ruth<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

How Jesus Qualified<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ref. in Bible<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Must be a near kinsman and a blood relative<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2:1<\/a>, 2:20<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jesus, <\/span>by His incarnation, became a near kinsman to humanity in general and by his birth through Miriam (Mary), became a near kinsman to the Jewish people in particular.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jn. 1:14<\/a>; Phil. 2:1\u201311<\/a>; Heb. 2:12\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

<\/span>Must be willing to pay the price<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2:8<\/a>, 3:11<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jesus was willing.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Matt. 20:28<\/a>; Jn. 3:16<\/a>, 10:11<\/a>, and 10:17\u201328<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Must be able to do it<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2:1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jesus was able.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Heb. 7:25<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Must be free himself<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

Jesus was free Himsel<\/span>f.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 Cor. 5:21<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Must have the price of redemption<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2:1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jesus possessed the price of redemption: innocent human blood.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Is. 53:5<\/a>; Jn. 1:29<\/a>; 1 Pet. 1:18\u201319<\/a> and 1:24<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>H. Purpose<\/p>\n

At least six purposes can be suggested for why the book was written:<\/p>\n

First: To provide a genealogical link between Judah and David, and so continue the messianic line, since there is no gen<\/span>ealogy given of King David in the Book of First Samuel.<\/p>\n

Second: To show that there was faith and obedience in that time of apostasy, and so God still had a Remnant.<\/p>\n

Third: To illustrate the concept of<\/span> the kinsman-redeemer.<\/p>\n

Fourth: To show that God\u2019s grace included the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Fifth: To show the superiority of the House of David to the House of Saul, and so defend the claims of David over the cla<\/span>ims of Ishbosheth. This was probably the most important purpose. After Saul was killed, David did not become king of all Israel. Ishbosheth became the king of all the tribes except Judah. For seven ye<\/span>ars, David was king only of the Tribe of Judah. Because defending David\u2019s claim as king over all Israel was the key purpose of the book, the Book of Ruth serves as the third appendix to the Book of Judges. In the face of the theme of the Book of Judges, <\/span>i.e.<\/em> the Canaanization of Israelite society, the Book of Ruth showed that the godly ancestors of David were not Canaanized.<\/p>\n

Sixth: To provide a ty<\/span>pe of the Messiah as the Kinsman-Redeemer.<\/p>\n

The rabbinic views for the writing of the book include the following:<\/p>\n

This book of the Holy Scripture unfolds the divine pattern of events that was to give r<\/span>ise to the royal house of David as a result of the marriage of Boaz and the Moabite woman Ruth. It is the story of how Ruth earned the privilege of becoming the mother of royalty in Israel because of her persistence in cleaving to the Jewish people.<\/span>7<\/a><\/p>\n

One rabbinic view is that Samuel wrote the book with the purpose of defending David against his critics who claimed that because he was of Moabite de<\/span>scent he had no right to be king. Another purpose was to show how God responds to deeds of kindness:<\/p>\n

Why was Megillot Ruth, meaning the scroll of Ruth, written? It does not contain laws concerning pur<\/span>ity, or impurity, nor about what is allowed or forbidden. It was written to tell us how great the reward is of those who excel in deeds of kindness and love.8<\/a><\/p>\n

The Soncino Commentary<\/em>, which is the more<\/span> scholarly Orthodox Jewish commentary, gives eight purposes for the Book of Ruth, but some of these purposes impose Orthodox Jewish views on the book. According to that commentary, the Book of Ruth was written: first, t<\/span>o protect against intermarriage, unless it occurs in exceptional cases; second, to check indiscriminate proselytizing; third, to encourage hard work and industry; fourth, to show that success comes to the truly pious; fifth, to emphasize the need for vigilance in the supervision of one\u2019s estate; sixth, to instruct in moral chastity; seventh, to impart a lesson in human kindness; and eighth, to teach against leaving <\/span>the Land of Israel, even due to famine.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>I. Key Verses<\/p>\n

There are two key verses in the Book of Ruth. The first is 1:16<\/a>, where Ruth makes her declaration: your people shall be my people, and your God my God<\/em>. Since a key purpose of the book is<\/span> to show the genealogical link from Judah to David, the second key verse is 4:17<\/a>, which states: the father of Jesse, the father of David<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>J. Key Word<\/p>\n

The key word of the book is kinsman-redeemer, goel<\/span>, which appears in the Hebrew text twelve times within the book. Furthermore, other forms of this Hebrew word appear twenty times, such as<\/span>: redeem, redeemer, and redemption<\/em>. But a related concept is also key, the concept of chesed<\/span>, which carries the meaning of \u201cloyalty,\u201d a loyalty born out of love and kindness toward those to whom a per<\/span>son is responsible (cf. 1:8<\/a>, 2:20<\/a>, 3:10<\/a>). It often carries the concept of covenant-love or covenant-loyalty.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

K. The Book of Ruth and the Feast of Weeks<\/p>\n

This is the book read during the Feast of Weeks. In Hebrew, this feast is known as Shavuot<\/span>, and in Greek, Pentecost<\/span>. In the history of Judaism, a practice developed by tradition, and then rabbis would come up with reasons why a tradition was practiced. Because of this, rabbis often have more than one reason for a specific tradition. One of the reasons given for reading the Book of Ruth during the Feast of Weeks or Shavuot<\/span> is because Ruth was a convert to Torah<\/em> Judaism (Mosaic Judaism) and the Torah<\/em>, by Jewish tradition, was given on Shavuot<\/span> or the Feast of Weeks. One tradition is used to explain another. A second reason given by the rabbis is that the numerical value of Ruth<\/em> is 606. When the seven laws of Noah are added to the figure, it provides a total 613, which is the number of commandments she accepted after she was converted to Mosaic Judaism. A third reason given is that David, who is her descendant, was born on and also died on the Feast of Weeks. A fourth reason is that the story of Ruth takes place during the Bikkurim<\/span> or the Feast of First Fruits and Shavuot<\/span> the Feast of Weeks. A fifth reason is that the book exemplifies chesed<\/span> (loving-kindness; loyal-love), and the Torah<\/em> is permeated with chesed<\/span>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Why is the Book of Ruth read on Shavuot, on the anniversary of the giving of the Torah? Because this book is permeated with chesed<\/span><\/span>. As it is said, [quoting Proverbs 31:26<\/a>] The Torah of chesed<\/span> is on her tongue.9<\/a><\/p>\n

The sixth reason given is as follows:<\/p>\n

Why is the Book of Ruth read on Shavuot, the anniversary of the giving of the Tor<\/span>ah? To teach you that the Torah is only acquired through suffering and poverty. And so Scripture asserts, according to Psalm 68:10<\/a>: your flocks settled therein, you prepared in your goodness for the p<\/span>oor.10<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>L. Theme<\/p>\n

The theme of the book is that God is faithful in His work of loving, superintending, and providentially caring for His people. The Book of Ruth shows how God rescued Elimelech\u2019s family from e<\/span>xtinction and how Elimelech\u2019s family triumphed over tragedy, leading to the birth of David, a rightful heir to the kingship of Israel.<\/p>\n

This theme is exemplified by the concept of chesed<\/span> that can best <\/span>be described as a covenant-love, whether it is a divine or human covenant. The word is used three times in this book (1:8<\/a> [twice] and 3:10<\/a>), used of God, Orpah, and Ruth. However, the practice is seen<\/span> beyond the frequency of the use of the term. There is God\u2019s chesed<\/span> toward His people, Ruth\u2019s chesed<\/span> toward Naomi, and Boaz\u2019s chesed<\/span> toward Ruth. Chesed<\/span> requires three things. First, chesed<\/span> requires e<\/span>xtraordinary commitment. Orpah and Mr. So-and-So, the unnamed relative in chapter 4<\/a> in the book, are ordinary people, and neither one practiced chesed<\/span>. While initially Orpah did show it, it ceased wit<\/span>h her return to Moab. Second, chesed<\/span> takes extraordinary risks. Ruth took such a risk at the threshing floor, and Boaz took such a risk at the city gate. Third, chesed<\/span> requires things be done in a pro<\/span>per way, and things are carried out in a proper way throughout this book.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>TWO<\/em><\/p>\n

The Commitment of Ruth\u2014<\/em>1:1\u201322<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. Historical Background\u20141:1\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Sojourn to Moab\u20141:1\u20132<\/a><\/p>\n

1And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, <\/span>and his wife, and his two sons. 2And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. And they came i<\/span>nto the country of Moab, and continued there.<\/p>\n

The first verse deals with the actual sojourn from Bethlehem-judah<\/em> to the Land of Moab<\/em>. It begins with the timing of this event: And it came to pass \u2026 whe<\/em><\/span>n the judges judged<\/em>. This indicates the chronological period, the period of the Judges, when the story occurred. Thus, the Book of Ruth is a fitting appendix to the Book of Judges, making it the third<\/span> appendix.<\/p>\n

In rabbinic tradition, this was the time of the judge Ibzan, one of the judges mentioned briefly in the Book of Judges. The reason his name is not mentioned here is out of respect, since ac<\/span>cording to another rabbinic tradition, Ibzan was a relative of Elimelech. The Midrash Rabbah<\/span> on Ruth<\/em>, another ancient rabbinic commentary, asks:<\/p>\n

Who were the judges referred to? Rav said, they were Ba<\/span>rak and Deborah. Rabbi Judah Joshua Ben Levi said, they were Shamgar and Ehud. Rabbi Hunna said, Deborah, Barak, and Jael. The word judge implies one, judges two, the judges three \u2026 woe unto that gene<\/span>ration that judges its judges and woe unto that generation whose judges need to be judged.11<\/a><\/p>\n

They interpreted that phrase when the judges judged<\/em> as the judges being judged, but that is not the meaning<\/span>. It simply states that the period of time in which this story takes place is during the period of the Judges, prior to the time of kingship.<\/p>\n

As for the cause of the sojourn, there was a famine in the<\/em><\/span> land<\/em>. Again, this famine<\/em> may have taken place in connection with the devastation of the Land by the Midianites in the days of Gideon. (See page 61<\/a> for background information on the Midianites.) Compa<\/span>ring what the Book of Judges states about the famine in the days of Gideon with the context here, four observations can be made. First, this famine<\/em> had to be a very serious one, one that extended over<\/span> the whole Land; otherwise, they could have just simply sojourned in another part of Israel instead of leaving the country. Second, the famine<\/em> had to last for several years to compel them to leave the<\/span> Land and go to Moab. Third, ten years would pass before Naomi would hear that the famine<\/em> had ended. Fourth, the Midianites oppressed Israel for seven years, and the oppression included the destructio<\/span>n of the produce of the soil from this famine<\/em> that would naturally follow (cf. Judg. 6:3\u20134<\/a>). Therefore, the story is best placed historically in the period of Gideon, within the Book of Judges. The ca<\/span>use of the famine itself is not stated in the Book of Ruth, but drought and famine were among the judgments God said would come upon the Land as a result of failure to keep the Law (Lev. 26:18\u201320<\/a>; Deu<\/span>t. 28:23\u201324<\/a>). The Book of Judges provides ample evidence of their failure to keep the Law that brought about the famine in the days of Gideon. Furthermore, in this context, the drought did not affect <\/span>Moab, which is very close to Israel, separated only by the Dead Sea. So this was a local famine in Israel only, which points to this being a divine judgment.<\/p>\n

In these days, a certain man of Bethlehem-<\/em><\/span>judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab<\/em>. His place of origin was Bethlehem-judah<\/em>. This city plays either a positive role or a neutral role, but never plays a negative role in the Book of Judges, <\/span>which is not true of the City of Gibeah (Saul\u2019s birthplace), which plays a negative role. The main purpose was to sojourn<\/em>. The Hebrew word is ger<\/span>, which means \u201ca resident alien.\u201d This shows that the p<\/span>urpose of the trip was not permanent residency. The root meaning of the word means \u201cto live among people who are not blood relatives.\u201d The ger<\/span> did not have native civil rights but was dependent upon t<\/span>he hospitality of the natives. This concept played an important role in the society of the Ancient Middle East. In Israel, the ger<\/span> had certain guaranteed rights. It is not certain that the same princi<\/span>ple was true within the country of Moab.<\/p>\n

The place of the sojourn was the country of Moab<\/em>. The Hebrew actually reads \u201cthe fields of Moab<\/em>,\u201d showing that the emphasis is on where there was land to grow <\/span>food. The use of the term \u201cfield\u201d itself is not unusual in that it does appear elsewhere: 1 Samuel 6:1<\/a>, the field of the Philistines; Obadiah 19<\/a>, the field of Ephraim and the field of Samaria. But the<\/span> plural form, \u201cthe fields of Moab,\u201d is very unusual and appears only in this book and only of Moab<\/em>. It refers to only a part of the country and not to the whole country, that part of Moab<\/em> that is a pl<\/span>ateau and good for cultivation and not the rugged, mountainous regions of Moab<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The second verse lists the family. The family members include first of all, the husband: The name of the man was Elimele<\/em><\/span>ch<\/em>, which means \u201cmy God is King.\u201d Then the wife is listed: and the name of his wife Naomi<\/em>, which has the meanings \u201cmy sweetness,\u201d \u201cmy delight,\u201d \u201cmy pleasantness,\u201d \u201cmy sweet one,\u201d and \u201cthe pleasant one<\/span>.\u201d In this book, the emphasis will be on the meaning of \u201cpleasant one\u201d or \u201cpleasantness.\u201d Next, the two sons are mentioned: Mahlon and Chilion<\/em>. Mahlon<\/em> comes from a Hebrew word meaning \u201cweakly,\u201d from t<\/span>he root chalah<\/span>, \u201cto be sick.\u201d In rabbinic tradition,12<\/a> it means \u201cto profane,\u201d because they profaned their bodies. However, it only has the concept of sickness. Chilion<\/em> means \u201cwasting\u201d or \u201cpining.\u201d The<\/span> rabbis take the name Chilion<\/em> to come from a word meaning \u201cto destroy,\u201d because they were judged worthy to be destroyed and because they were completely wiped out and destroyed from the earth. However<\/span>, again, this is an imposed meaning by the rabbis and not the actual root meaning. The names seem to imply that the sons were not healthy sons even from the time they were born. All these names appear<\/span> in the Ugaritic Texts13<\/a> that were discovered, which shows them to be typical Semitic and Canaanite names.<\/p>\n

Their ethnic origin was: Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah<\/em>. Ephrath was the ancient name for Be<\/span>thlehem (Gen. 35:19<\/a> and 48:7<\/a>; Ruth 4:11<\/a>; 1 Sam. 17:12<\/a>; Mic. 5:2<\/a>), and was also used as the name of the region where Bethlehem was located. In Hebrew, the form here is not the normal form, Ephrat<\/span>, but <\/span>Ephratim<\/span>, which is the plural form and the adjective formation from Ephrath. It is also found elsewhere as Ephratah<\/span>. They came from Bethlehem in the region of Ephrath, within the Tribe of Judah.<\/p>\n

Their<\/span> destination is then given: and they came into the country of Moab<\/em> or the fields of Moab. Either they were the only Jewish family to do this or the only ones actually mentioned in doing so. But the so<\/span>journ to Moab was wrong for three reasons. First, Naomi herself recognized that her bereavement of her husband and her two sons was a judgment of God. Second, in Deuteronomy 23:5\u20136<\/a>, the Moabites were <\/span>barred from participating in the life of Israel, and Israel was forbidden to seek their prosperity. Third, if God wanted them to move, He would have declared it as He did with the two captivities of Assyria and Babylonia<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The verse ends with the duration of the sojourn: and continued there<\/em>, meaning they stayed there for a duration of time, though at this point the actual length is not stated. Howe<\/span>ver, the rabbis have another interpretation of the phrase. They think the sin of Elimelech was that he went to Moab only to sojourn, but then decided to live there permanently:<\/p>\n

Our rabbis taught, it i<\/span>s not permitted to go forth from the land of Israel to a foreign country unless one seah is sold for two seahs. Rabbi Shimshon said, This is permitted only when one cannot find anything to buy. But when one is able to find <\/span>something to buy, even if one seah costs a selah, one must not depart. And so said Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion were among the notables of their generation and they were leaders of that generation. Why then were they punished? Because they left the land of Israel for a foreign country.<\/span>14<\/a><\/p>\n

Another rabbinic source states:<\/p>\n

Elimelech, and Salmon, and Pel<\/span>oni Almoni, and the father of Naomi were all descendants from Nachshon the son of Amminadav. What does he teach us by this statement? That even the merits of one\u2019s ancestors [are] of no avail when one leaves the land of Israel for<\/span> a foreign land.15<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Death in Moab\u20141:3\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

3And Elimelech, Naomi\u2019s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons. 4And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelt there about ten years. 5And Mahlon and Chilion died both of them; and the woman was left of her two children and of her husband.<\/p>\n

These verses describe the death of three Israelites in Moab beginning with the death of Elimelech in verse 3<\/a>: Elimelech, Naomi\u2019s husband, died<\/em>. Exactly how long after entering Moab this happened is not stated. The rabbinic interpretation is:<\/p>\n

Why then was Elimelech punished? Because he struck despair in the hearts of Israel. He was like a prominent man who dwelt in a certain country, and the people of that country depended upon him, and said that if a drought should come, he could supply the whole country with food for ten years. When a drought came however, his maidservant went out and stood in the marketplace with her basket in her hand. And the people of the country said[:] \u201cThis is the man upon whom we depended, that if a drought should come he would supply our wants for ten years. And here his maidservant stands in the market place with her basket in her hand.\u201d So with Elimelech! He was one of the notables of his place and one of the leaders of his generation. When the famine came he said, \u201cNow, all Israel will come knocking at my door for help, each one with his basket.\u201d He therefore, rose and fled from them.16<\/a><\/p>\n

In rabbinic interpretation, he was a wealthy man, and the people thought he could supply all the food needed for ten years if a drought happened. When the drought did hit, he did not have that capacity; and that is why he left the Land. There is no implication of this in the text; it is purely rabbinic tradition. Another rabbinic tradition gives the following reason for the death of Elimelech:<\/p>\n

It states in the Midrash<\/span> (Yalkut<\/span> 600) that the name \u201cElimelech\u201d indicates \u201cFrom me (<\/em>eilai<\/span>)<\/em> will come the monarchy (<\/em>m<\/span>alachus<\/span>)<\/em>,\u201d for he thought that from him would come the Davidic monarchy. In this he erred, because to be eligible for the monarchy one needs to be concerned for all of Israel. Even though his words were accurate, in that the monarchy eventually resulted from his daughter-in-law, he himself was excluded, for someone who makes calculations such as he did indicates that he was not concerned about the troubles of the Jewish people. As such, he could have no connection to the monarchy.17<\/a><\/p>\n

Ruth 1:3<\/a> concludes that Naomi was now the survivor of the family in which the husband was gone. What she was left with for now was her two sons. But that, too, would soon change.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> records the marriage of the sons: And they took them wives of the women of Moab<\/em>. The Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 7:3<\/a> did not actually forbid marriage with the Moabites as it forbade marriage with the Canaanite women. But in Deuteronomy 23:3<\/a>, the Law did forbid the reception of Moabites into the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation. So marrying Moabites was also the wrong thing to do. God\u2019s grace often works things out, but based upon the principle of the Law, it was the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, they married only after the death of the father who may not have allowed such marriages. The way the rabbis deal with the Mosaic Law here is to point out that the term Moab<\/em> in these verses is masculine, not feminine. So the prohibition applies only to male Moabites and not to female Moabites, and to the descendants of male Moabites, but not female Moabites. That is why this prohibition of Mosaic Law did not apply to David. This is probably a valid observation, since the national identity is passed on through the father and not through the mother. So if the father was a Moabite, then the product would be Moabite, but because only the mother was the Moabite and the father was a Jew, the descendants were Jews. So David is considered a Jew in spite of his Moabite origins through Ruth.<\/p>\n

Verse 4<\/a> goes on to name the two women: the name of the one was Orpah<\/em>. This name may have the meaning of \u201cneck\u201d or \u201cstiff-necked\u201d or \u201cfirmness.\u201d For now it is not stated to which son she was married. The second woman was named Ruth<\/em>. Her name may have the meaning of \u201cfriendship\u201d or \u201ccompanion.\u201d The source might come from rvh<\/span>, another root besides what was mentioned earlier in the introduction. This has the meaning \u201cto soak,\u201d \u201cto irrigate,\u201d or \u201cto refresh.\u201d Thus, the name would have the meaning of \u201crefreshment\u201d or \u201csatiation,\u201d which was one of the secondary meanings listed earlier in the introduction. In other words, the actual meaning of the name Ruth<\/em> is not all that clear, but it carries primarily the concept of \u201cfriendship\u201d and secondarily the concept of \u201csatisfaction\u201d or \u201csatiation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Verse 4<\/a> conclud<\/span>es with the duration: they dwelt there about ten years<\/em>. This ten-year period may include the whole period in Moab from the time they moved there and not just the period of time when the two sons were <\/span>married. The severity of the famine is indicated by the fact that they did stay in Moab for ten years. This again fits well with the time of Gideon (Judg. 6:2\u20135<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Two observations can be made here reg<\/span>arding the identity of Ruth and Orpah. The first observation is that the names of the four Jews are Hebrew, but the names of the two wives are not Hebrew, which shows the accuracy of this account. Although today, <\/span>Ruth<\/em> is viewed as a nice Jewish name, it was not a Jewish name in its origins. A second observation is to note the negative aspects of the marriage. The term used for the marriage here is<\/span> nasa ishah<\/span> in place of the normal lakach<\/span>. The phrase nasa ishah<\/span> appears nine times in the Old Testament, and its context always has a negative connotation (cf. Judg. 21:23<\/a>; Ruth 1:4<\/a>; 2 Chr. 11:21<\/a>, 13<\/span>:21<\/a>, and 24:3<\/a>; Ezra 9:2<\/a>, 9:12<\/a>, and 10:44<\/a>; Neh. 13:25<\/a>). So, the use of nasa ishah<\/span> in place of lakach<\/span> indicates the narrator\u2019s negative judgment on this action. Again, the Mosaic Law did not actually fo<\/span>rbid the marrying of Moabite women, but it still is a violation of Deuteronomy 7<\/a>, since the Moabites were the people of Chemosh. The Israelites were forbidden to marry those who practiced idolatry. Fu<\/span>rthermore, the fact that they went into exile itself was considered a judgment of God (Deut. 28:32<\/a>). Also, they were married for ten years and no children were produced, and barrenness was also a judg<\/span>ment of God (Deut. 28:18<\/a>). Finally, the negative aspect of the marriage is seen in the death of the two sons, leaving three widows.<\/p>\n

Some unique rabbinic traditions concern the two women who were marri<\/span>ed to the two sons. In rabbinic tradition, Ruth and Orpah were sisters, and both were daughters of Eglon, the King of Moab, who played a role in the Book of Judges. One rabbinic source states:<\/p>\n

Rabbi P<\/span>adot asked the son of Rav Asi, a man of [the town] Socho: since Ruth was a proselyte, why did they not call her by another name? [meaning a Jewish name]. He answered him: So have I heard. She did have anothe<\/span>r name when she married Mahlon, they re-named her Ruth, and from then on she used that name. For her, conversion came when she married Mahlon and not afterwards. He said to him: But it is written later, \u201cwhere you will sleep, I will sleep, and your God, my God.\u201d Naomi gave her many warnings [against the rigorous life of a Jew] and we have learned that Ruth accepted them all. If she had already converted <\/span>previously, was all this necessary at that time? He replied to him: God forbid that Mahlon married her while she was still a Gentile. Rather, when she married, she converted and she remained under the presumption of fear of her husband, she and Orpah in this manner. When their husbands died, Orpah returned to her abominable ways, and Ruth remained in her goodness as it is written, \u201cBehold our sister-in-law has returned to her nation and her god, but Ruth clung to her\u201d as she had earlier. And when her husband died Ruth cleaved to her of her own free will.<\/span><\/span><\/span>18<\/a><\/p>\n

In rabbinic tradition, <\/span>Elimelech and his two sons were absolutely righteous. So it was inconceivable to the rabbis that they would marry Gentiles who were not proselytes to Judaism. In rabbinic tradition, they had already converted to Judaism. Ag<\/span>ain, this is not seen in the text, but this is the way the rabbis try to solve the problem. Tradition trying to explain a tradition, which, in turn, tries to explain yet another tradition, is how rabbinic traditionalism works. Rabbinic tradition also states concerning Orpah that she was called Orpah because she <\/span>turned<\/em> her back on Naomi. The name Orpah<\/em> comes from oref<\/span>, meanin<\/span>g \u201cthe nape of her neck.\u201d Whereas Ruth was so called because she saw<\/em>, raatah<\/span>, meaning \u201cconsidered well her mother-in-law.\u201d Another rabbinic statement:<\/p>\n

Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was she called Ruth? Beca<\/span>use issued from her David who \u201csaturated,\u201d rivah, the Holy One, Blessed be he with hymns. Esoterically speaking, the name Ruth is spelled with the letters of \u201cturtledove,\u201d for, just as the turtledove is fit for sacrifice on the altar, so was Ruth fi<\/span>t for inclusion in the Assembly of God.19<\/a><\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> of Ruth chapter 1<\/a> records the death of the two sons: And Mahlon and Chilion died both of them<\/em>. An ear<\/span>ly death was often viewed as a judgment of God. However, the names implied they were sickly men, and so they may have died of natural causes. There is nothing in the text to imply that their deaths were a dir<\/span>ect judgment of God. But rabbinic tradition is as follows:<\/p>\n

Because they married Gentile women, without proper conversion, God punished them with death. Because Ruth later converted, Mahlon was<\/span> forgiven but Chilion was not. And from Orpah came Goliath[;] she was identified with Harafun, the mother of the four Philistine giants, among whom was Goliath.20<\/a><\/p>\n

The above rabbinic tradition contradi<\/span>cts the previous one quoted, saying they were not properly converted at the time of their marriage.<\/p>\n

Now the survivor, Naomi, was left of her two children and of her husband<\/em>. Naomi lost her entire fami<\/span>ly except for the two daughters-in-law. She was not only a widow, but also one without any sons to help her survive. The status of widows was precarious in Israel (1 Kg. 17:8\u201316<\/a>; 2 Kg. 4:1\u20137<\/a>), and thi<\/span>s may have been the motivation for Naomi to send the two daughters-in-law back to Moab. This was true in spite of the fact that the Law of Moses required special protection for widows (Deut. 10:18<\/a>, 24<\/span>:17\u201321<\/a>, 26:12\u201313<\/a>, and 27:19<\/a>). The Prophets reaffirmed this need in Isaiah 1:23<\/a>. In fact, God is viewed as the defender of the widow (Ps. 68:5<\/a> and 146:9<\/a>). This is also the concern of the Law of the Mes<\/span>siah (Jas. 1:27<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. Naomi\u2019s Return to Judah\u20141:6\u201318<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>1. Departure\u20141:6\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

6Then she arose with her daughters-in-law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that Jehovah had visited his people in giving<\/span> them bread. 7And she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.<\/p>\n

Verse 6<\/a> provides the basis for the de<\/span>parture. The act is stated as: she arose with her daughters-in-law<\/em>. The purpose: that she might return from the country of Moab<\/em>. The basis for this was that she had heard in the country of Moab how th<\/em><\/span>at Jehovah had visited his people in giving them bread<\/em>. This phrase shows that the famine was one of divine judgment. The Hebrew word for visited<\/em> is pakad<\/span>, a verb used of divine activity in the Old Te<\/span>stament. It sometimes carries the concept or overtones of divine judgment, as in Jeremiah 25:12<\/a>. It sometimes emphasizes divine blessing, as is the case here. So when God visits, everything depends on<\/span> the state of affairs that He finds. A negative state will result in judgment; a positive one, in blessings. The verb is a warning against presuming on the holiness of God and a reminder that God delights to bless. On this occasion, God <\/span>visited<\/em> His people, and the visit meant an end of the famine. The Targum<\/span>21<\/a> on this verse states: God gave bread to his people on account of the righteousness of I<\/em><\/span>bzan and on account of the prayer of Boaz the pious<\/em>. But the talmudic tractate, Babba Bathra<\/em>, states: Ibzan and Boaz is the same individual<\/em>. In rabbinic tradition, the Ibzan of the Book of Judges is t<\/span>he same as the Boaz in the Book of Ruth.<\/p>\n

Verse 7<\/a> records the account of the departure itself: she went forth out of the place where she was<\/em>. The company included her two daughters-in-law. The destinat<\/span>ion was: and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah<\/em>. The Hebrew word used here is the word shuv<\/span>. Shuv<\/span> is used of a physical return, but it is also used of a spiritual return throughout <\/span>Scripture. The text states they went to return unto the land of Judah<\/em>; but technically, this is only true of Naomi. The other two were Moabites, who were not returning to Judah, only leaving Moab. So <\/span>the viewpoint here is from Naomi\u2019s perspective; and, for now, she becomes the main character. She is the one returning. The others are heading to Judah for the first time. In reference to Judah, the text reads <\/span>the land of Judah<\/em>, not just \u201cthe field of Judah,\u201d as was the case with Moab. The issue here is one of national identity, rather than just referring to a return to a particular region.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Naomi\u2019s First Admonition\u20141:8\u20139<\/a><\/p>\n

8And Naomi said unto her two daughters-in-law, Go, return each of you to her mother\u2019s house: Jehovah deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. 9Jehovah grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voice, and wept.<\/p>\n

At this point Naomi attempted to have the daughters-in-law return back to Moab and made more than one admonition. The first admonition begins with the verbal admonition (vv. 8\u20139a<\/a>), when Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law: Go, return each of you to<\/em> her mother\u2019s house<\/em>. The statement mother\u2019s house<\/em> is unusual because the normal pattern was for the widow to return to the house of her father (Gen. 38:11<\/a>; Lev. 22:13<\/a>; Num. 30:16<\/a>; Deut. 22:21<\/a>; Judg. 19:2\u20133<\/a>). This expression, \u201cthe house of your mother,\u201d is found only three other times in Scripture (once in Genesis 24:28<\/a> and twice in the Song of Solomon in 3:4<\/a> and 8:2<\/a>), showing that it has a rather limited, unique, special meaning. The phrase means that Naomi was releasing them to re-marry, so she prayed that both of them would find security in the house of their future husbands. The mother\u2019s ho<\/em>use<\/em> was the locus for all matters of marriage. She called upon God\u2019s blessings: Jehovah deal kindly with you<\/em>; the basis was: as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew word used here in Naomi\u2019s blessing of Ruth and Orpah (Ruth 1:8<\/a>) is the word chesed<\/span>, and the primary emphasis is on \u201cloyalty to a covenant.\u201d Chesed<\/span> implies the mutual and reciprocal rights and obligations between the parties of a relationship. It is especially used of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. But chesed<\/span> does not only include loyalty; secondarily, it also includes mercy. In this secondary meaning, the weaker party seeks the protection and the blessing of the patron and protector, but the weaker party cannot lay absolute claim to it. The stronger party remains committed to his promise but retains his freedom, especially in the manner in which he will implement those promises. The word implies a personal involvement and commitment in a relationship beyond the simple rule of law. So, these two widows have been loyal and loving to their deceased husbands and also to Naomi herself beyond the normal expectations, beyond the customs, beyond the rule of law.<\/p>\n

Naomi\u2019s statement of the blessing has a second part (Ruth 1:9<\/a>): Jehovah grant you that ye may find rest<\/em>. The term rest<\/em> in the context of this book refers specifically to the state of marriage. In the Book of Joshua, rest<\/em> did not merely mean the end of war, but also security and the blessing of the Lord. Here in this book, the word rest<\/em> implies both husband and home, but the primary emphasis is on the husband. In a society where women could not find security alone, it was her husband who would be the one who would provide it. And that is where the problem came in for the two Moabite daughters-in-law. In Israel, it was unlikely they would find husbands, since they were both Moabites. So in the end, they will only end up sharing in Naomi\u2019s poverty, and therefore, would not have the rest<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>3. Ruth and Orpah\u2019s Response to Naomi\u20141:10<\/a><\/p>\n

And they said unto her, Nay, but we will return with you unto your people<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Both women initially rejected the admonition. Both said, Nay<\/em>, and their intent was<\/span> to return with Naomi to her own people. So the first admonition failed to convince the two daughters-in-law to go back to Moab.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>4. Naomi\u2019s Second Admonition\u20141:11\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

11And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? 12Turn again, my daughters, go your<\/span> way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should even have a husband to-night, and should also bear sons; 13would you therefore tarry till they were grown? would you<\/span> therefore stay from having husbands? nay, my daughters, for it grieves me much for your sakes, for the hand of Jehovah is gone forth against me.<\/p>\n

In the second admonition, Naomi makes two appeals. Her<\/span> first appeal is in verse 11<\/a>; her second appeal is in verses 12<\/a> to 13<\/a>. In the last phrase, for the hand of Jehovah is gone forth against me<\/em>, Naomi recognized that all that had happened to her was not <\/span>pure chance, but the hand of God.<\/p>\n

Naomi\u2019s two admonitions give rise to two observations. First, Naomi gave Ruth and Orpah three reasons for turning back by stating three things that would be impossibl<\/span>e, with each option more impossible than the previous. First, will Naomi yet find a husband? At her age, the answer is negative. Second, will she yet produce sons? Here again, it would be a negative answer. Third, will they wait around for any such sons to grow up so that they can marry them? Obviously not. By these three rhetorical questions, she presented three <\/span>situations that simply were not going to happen. Second, what Naomi did not mention was the possibility of finding husbands for them in Judah itself. This was probably due to their Moabite nationality, which would be an obstacle in Jewish territory.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>5. Orpah\u2019s and Ruth\u2019s Responses to Naomi\u20141:14<\/a><\/p>\n

And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clave unto her<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Initially, there was a combined emotional res<\/span>ponse: And they lifted up their voice, and wept again<\/em>. That was followed by the physical response, but each responded differently.<\/p>\n

Orpah\u2019s response was that she kissed her mother-in-law<\/em>. In Ruth 1:9<\/a>, <\/span>Naomi kissed Orpah, but Orpah did not receive this as a final farewell. But here Orpah kissed Naomi, and this is seen as a kiss of farewell (cf. Gen. 31:28<\/a>; 1 Kg. 19:20<\/a>), because Orpah will now leave <\/span>the scene. Many interpret this as being a negative, but that need not be the case. As Hubbard notes, Orpah had two valid options; in choosing one of two valid options, she represents submissive obedience, and she did follow the coun<\/span>sel of an older woman.22<\/a><\/p>\n

But Ruth responds differently: but Ruth clave unto her<\/em>. The Hebrew word for \u201cclave\u201d is dabak<\/span>, which means \u201cto stick like glue.\u201d The very same c<\/span>ause that induced Orpah to return home is what caused Ruth to stay. The fact that Naomi will no longer have a husband or sons meant that she needed someone to take care of her. So Ruth chose to stay a<\/span>nd cleave to Naomi for the purpose of taking care of her. While Orpah chose to become a wife again, Ruth chose to remain a daughter. Orpah did the sensible and the expected thing; Ruth did the extraordinary, unexpected thing. So now, her <\/span>chesed<\/span> went beyond her previous expression of it, and beyond that of Orpah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>6. Naomi\u2019s Third Admonition\u20141:15<\/a><\/p>\n

And she said, Behold, you sister-in-law is gone back unto her people, and unto her god: return you after your sister-in-law<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Naomi tried one more admonition to get Rut<\/span>h to return as well. She used Orpah as the example: Behold, your sister-in-law is gone back<\/em>. Orpah has gone back in two ways. First, she went back to her national identity: unto her people;<\/em> she identi<\/span>fies herself with the Moabites. Second, she also went back to their religion: and unto her god<\/em>, Chemosh. From Naomi\u2019s perspective, Orpah has returned to her previous religion; and so, if there had bee<\/span>n any conversion to the God of her husband, it had been a matter of convenience and not conviction. It is not known if that is what Orpah really did; but this was Naomi\u2019s perspective, which may have been correct or incorrect. The text itself does not affirm the accuracy of what Naomi said. If Orpah did go<\/span> back to her gods, then she failed the theological test of Deuteronomy 23:3<\/a> (Law of Acceptance<\/span> into the Assembly regarding Moabites). The faith had to be genuine with no temptation to return to the gods of Moab. After giving Ruth the example of Orpah, Naomi admonished her, return you after you<\/em><\/span>r sister-in-law<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>7. Ruth\u2019s Response to Naomi\u2019s Third Admonition\u20141:16\u201317<\/a><\/p>\n

16And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave you, and to return from following after you, for whither you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will <\/span>lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; 17where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried: Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part you and me.<\/p>\n

Ruth\u2019s resp<\/span>onse began with a plea: Entreat me not to leave you, and to return from following after you<\/em>. The plea is followed by Ruth\u2019s firm commitment stated in five bold statements. First, wither you go, I will<\/em><\/span> go<\/em>. Second, where you lodge<\/em> or live, I will lodge<\/em> or live. Third, your people shall be my people<\/em>. Fourth, your God<\/em> [shall be] my God<\/em>. Fifth, where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried<\/em>. Fro<\/span>m the plea to the commitment came Ruth\u2019s oath: Jehovah do to me and more also<\/em>. Ruth invoked the name of God in her oath and not the name of Chemosh. This shows in whom she truly believed. The phrase, <\/span>Jehovah do so to me and more also<\/em>, was the standard oath formula invoking the punishment of God if one did not do what they said they would do. The same formula is used seven times in the Books of Sam<\/span>uel and Kings, (e.g. in 1 Samuel 3:17<\/a>, by Eli concerning Samuel; 1 Samuel 14:44<\/a>, by Saul of Jonathan\u2019s execution; in 1 Samuel 20:13<\/a>, of Jonathan\u2019s friendship with David; in 1 Samuel 25:22<\/a>, by David co<\/span>ncerning Nabal; in 2 Samuel 19:13<\/a>, by David concerning Amasa; in 1 Kings 20:10<\/a>, by Ben-Hadad concerning Samaria; and in 2 Kings 6:31<\/a>, by the king of Israel regarding Elijah).<\/p>\n

Ruth invoked God\u2019s Name (<\/span>Ruth 1:16<\/a>) thus accepting divine punishment if she did not do what she said she would do: Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part you and me<\/em>. The word death<\/em> in the Hebrew text is i<\/span>n the emphatic position. Two observations may be noted here. First, these are the first recorded words of Ruth\u2014the first time she is quoted in the book. Second, her decision was both social and religious. It was a social dec<\/span>ision: your people shall be my people<\/em>; and it was a religious decision: your God<\/em> [shall be] my God<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The rabbis understood Naomi\u2019s action as a conversation to test Ruth\u2019s conver<\/span>sion, the conversation being an imitation of a Bet Din<\/em>, a rabbinic court, asking the same questions a Bet Din<\/em> would ask.23<\/a> According to tradition, Naomi told Ruth that Israelites must not only observe<\/span> the commandments of the Law of Moses, but also the rabbinic enactments, issued as a fence around the Torah<\/em>. An example of such an enactment is being forbidden to walk beyond the Sabbath boundaries, a<\/span> distance of two thousand cubits in any direction on the Sabbath. That is when Ruth said, where you go, I will go<\/em>. When Naomi said it was forbidden for men and women to remain in privacy with each oth<\/span>er unless they are married, this is when Ruth said, wherever you lodge, I will<\/em> lodge<\/em>. When Naomi informed her there were 613 commandments to be followed, Ruth replied, your people<\/em> shall be my people<\/em>. <\/span>When Naomi told her that Jews are forbidden to worship idols, Ruth said, your God<\/em> [shall be] my God<\/em>. When Naomi told Ruth that the Bet Din<\/em> had the authority to enact four modes of execution, Ruth said<\/span>, where you die, I will die<\/em>. When Naomi told her that two graveyard sites were put at the disposal of the court for burying executed offenders, Ruth said, there will I be buried<\/em>. What this Talmudic st<\/span>atement shows is that the rabbis were imposing much later Rabbinic Judaism on the text of Ruth. The whole thing becomes an anachronism because none of these things existed at this time. But rabbinic tradition teaches that e<\/span>verything, including the Oral Law, came from Moses.<\/p>\n

The Midrash<\/span> on this passage adds that Naomi told Ruth that Jews were forbidden to go to the theaters and circuses of the heat<\/span>hen; and so, she will need to renounce such pleasures; so Ruth said, where you go, I will go<\/em>. Naomi said the Jews could not stay in a house that had no mezuzah<\/span> (door-post insignias), so Ruth said, whe<\/em><\/span>re you lodge, I will lodge<\/em>. Naomi told her of all the punishments for transgressing the negative commandments, and Ruth said, your God<\/em> [shall be] my God<\/em>. Again, this is an anachronism since there were<\/span> no circuses and theaters in the time of Ruth. These were later Greek and Roman innovations. But again, this shows how rabbis imposed later situations onto an earlier book.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>8. Naomi\u2019s Response to Ruth\u2019s Commitment\u20141:18<\/a><\/p>\n

And when she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking unto her<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew word for stedfastly minded<\/em> is amatz<\/span> meaning \u201cto<\/span> be stout,\u201d \u201cto be strong,\u201d or \u201cto be bold.\u201d But here it has the meaning of \u201cconfirming oneself in a purpose,\u201d \u201cto be determined.\u201d The word is reflexive, emphasizing the fact that Ruth was strengthened in this re<\/span>solve. Consequently, Naomi left off speaking with her;<\/em> once Naomi realized the steadfastness of Ruth, she no longer tried to convince Ruth to return to Moab.<\/p>\n

In rabbinic tradition, a would<\/span>-be Gentile proselyte to Judaism must be discouraged three times. This practice is based upon this passage. The rabbis state that three times Naomi told them to return, which teaches that a would-be p<\/span>roselyte should be dissuaded three times, but by the fourth time, he or she should be converted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

C. Naomi and Ruth\u2019s Arrival in Bethlehem\u20141:19\u201322<\/a><\/p>\n

19So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and the women said, Is this Naomi? 20And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara; for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. 21I went out full, and Jehovah has brought me home again empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing Jehovah has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me? 22So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, who returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.<\/p>\n

Verse 19<\/a>, describes the journey: So they two went until they came to Bethlehem<\/em>. This would make a journey of about seventy-five miles, and not a straight or level path, either. It meant they would have to descend from the Moabite Highlands to the Jordan Valley, a descent of 4,500 feet, followed by an ascent to Bethlehem of 3,750 feet, walking through desert territory, through the Wilderness of Judah. This verse then describes the response of Bethlehem to Naomi\u2019s return. The text gives the timing: And it came to pass<\/em>, when they were come to Bethlehem<\/em>. The response was all the city was moved about them<\/em>. The Hebrew word used is hum<\/span> meaning \u201cto murmur,\u201d \u201cto roar,\u201d \u201cto disturb greatly.\u201d The word emphasizes the great excitement surrounding the return of Naomi. The same word is used of the excitement of the Israelites when the Ark of the Covenant was brought into the camp (1 Sam. 4:5<\/a>); it is also used in 1 Kings 1:45<\/a>. The verbal response was: and the women said, Is this Naomi?<\/em><\/p>\n

Verses 20<\/a> to 21<\/a> provide Naomi\u2019s response. She began, in verse 20<\/a>, by telling them they should call her by a new name: Call me not Naomi<\/em>,call me Mara<\/em>. In Hebrew, the name Mara<\/span> would have been spelled with the letter he<\/em> at the end. But in the original text it is spelled with the aleph<\/em>, which indicates that the word may be Aramaic, but could also be Moabite. Probably there was a stronger similarity between Moabite and Aramaic, so in the text, it is spelled in the Moabite form. Naomi<\/em> means \u201cpleasant\u201d; Mara<\/span> means \u201cbitter.\u201d This was Naomi\u2019s response, to express an emotional response to a destructive, heart-crushing situation. The reason they should not call her Naomi<\/em>, but Mara<\/span>, is that the Almighty had dealt very bitterly with me<\/em>. She used the name Shaddai<\/span>, a name for God used forty-eight times in the Old Testament. In thirty-one of those forty-eight times, Shaddai<\/span> is found in the Book of Job. The name emphasizes God\u2019s power, which He dispenses as He sees fit. If God had determined that bitterness should enter her life, there was no other possibility; it must come. In what she said, she again shows that she did not believe in pure chance; she believed in divine providence. In verse 21<\/a>, Naomi explains the reason for the new name\u2014her changed condition: I went out full, and Jehovah has brought me home again empty<\/em>. She went<\/em> out full<\/em>, not in wealth and property, but with a husband and two sons. The word empty<\/em> is in the emphatic position: empty<\/em> now that the two sons and the husband are gone. However, she is not totally em<\/em>pty:<\/em> she has Ruth who will be the means of sustaining Naomi in her old age and who will also provide for the redemption of Naomi\u2019s prosperity and Elimelech\u2019s line. Then again Naomi referred to her changed name: why call ye me Naomi, seeing Jehovah has testified against me<\/em>. In Hebrew the qal<\/span> stem has the meaning of \u201cto testify.\u201d The meaning is that God has testified against her by the afflictions He has placed upon her, perhaps for leaving the Land of Israel for the Land of Moab. Thus she states, the Almighty has afflicted me<\/em>. Again, she used Shaddai<\/span>. She was helpless in the face of God\u2019s almighty power. God was supreme, as much in the land of Moab as He is in the Land of Israel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>A. Boaz\u2019s Field\u20142:1\u20133<\/a><\/p>\n

1And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband\u2019s, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz. 2And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to th<\/span>e field, and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find favor. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter. 3And she went, and came and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and <\/span>her hap was to light on the portion of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech.<\/p>\n

With verse 1<\/a>, Boaz is introduced for the first time. The relationship stated was that Naomi ha<\/em><\/span>d a kinsman of her husband\u2019s<\/em>. The term used for kinsman<\/em> here is not the term used earlier. In place of gaal<\/span> the word here is moda<\/span>, which comes from the Hebrew word yada<\/span>, meaning \u201cto know by experience<\/span>.\u201d The word carries the meaning of \u201cfamiliarity,\u201d \u201can acquaintance,\u201d or \u201cfriend.\u201d At this point, the word does not imply that he will be a kinsman-redeemer of the Mosaic Law. In rabbinic tradition, Boaz was the nephew of Elimelech, <\/span>and so the first cousin of Naomi\u2019s son Mahlon. Also by rabbinic tradition, Boaz was a member of the Sanhedrin, again, an anachronism, since there was no Sanhedrin at this time. Furthermore, by rabbinic tradition, Boaz was about eighty years old when he married Ruth, and was a childless widower.<\/span><\/p>\n

As to his status, the text states Boaz was: a mighty man of wealth<\/em>, a tr<\/span>anslation of two Hebrew words. The first Hebrew word is gibbor<\/span>, which means \u201ca mighty man of valor,\u201d and conveys the concept of one who was capable, efficient, worthy in battle, and exceptionally impo<\/span>rtant or powerful in a specific field. The most common usage of this term connotes military activity, military service, someone who is able to bear arms, or one who has already distinguished himself b<\/span>y performing heroic deeds. It is also used prophetically of the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6<\/a>. The second Hebrew word is chayil<\/span>, which means \u201cstrength.\u201d It is generally used of a warrior in a military sense (<\/span>e.g. of Gideon in Judg. 6:12<\/a>, and of Jephthah in Judg. 11:1<\/a>). It is also used of one with great ability in war or vocation, or wealth and possessions. The terms emphasize Boaz was a man of distinction<\/span>, a man of wealth. Here chayil<\/span> is not used in the military sense, but in the sense of a wealthy landowner. Boaz was an efficient, capable, and wealthy landowner in his community, and one who lived an <\/span>exemplary lifestyle. In fact, the same term is used of Ruth in 3:11<\/a> who, of course, was never a soldier. Chayil<\/span> is also used of the descendants of David in 1 Samuel 16:18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Boaz\u2019s relationship was of t<\/em><\/span>he family of Elimelech<\/em>; the blood-relationship was with Elimelech<\/em>, and not with Naomi. Then the text declares his identity: and his name was Boaz<\/em>. Some assume that it comes from two Hebrew words bo<\/span> an<\/span>d az<\/span>, meaning, \u201cin whom is strength,\u201d but that is not the case. The root of this word is baaz<\/span>, which does not occur in the Hebrew text, but has the meaning of \u201calacrity\u201d or \u201cto be fleet.\u201d He is the on<\/span>ly one with this name in the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n

Four basic facts about Boaz are important to the story. First, he was a relative of Naomi\u2019s husband; and therefore, he could potentially be a kinsman-redeeme<\/span>r, though that is not yet stated by the use of the proper term. Second, he was a man of valor, a hero in fulfilling his obligations. Third, he was from the Clan of Elimelech, which was a subdivision of the Tribe of Judah. Fourth, as to his identity, <\/span>his name was Boaz<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> in Ruth chapter 2<\/a> deals with Ruth\u2019s plan, beginning, Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi<\/em> \u2026 Ruth is still called a Moabitess <\/span>even after her conversion. She is never called a Jew or Jewess or an Israelite, since she is only a proselyte, showing again that Jewishness is a matter of national identity in descent. She is always called a Moabitess, both before and <\/span>after her conversion. She is now a believer in Judaism, but she is not ethnically a Jew. Her suggestion was, Let me now go to the field<\/em>. Ruth made the offer to go o<\/span>ut to the field, and this will relieve Naomi of the humiliation she would have to suffer to glean among the very poor. The purpose was to glean among the ears of grain<\/em>. She would search for the gleani<\/span>ngs for the poor, which was in keeping with the Law of Moses (Lev. 19:9<\/a> and 23:22<\/a>; Deut. 24:19<\/a>). The rabbinic interpretation of this verse is as follows:<\/p>\n

The extreme poverty that forced Ruth to pick t<\/span>he fields like any pauper was no coincidence, but it was a foreshadowing of that poor man, riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9<\/a>) that would descend from her\u2014[he would be] the Messiah.25<\/a><\/p>\n

The interpretatio<\/span>n gives the verse a messianic implication by way of rabbinic typology. Also, it shows that Zechariah 9:9<\/a> was interpreted as a messianic verse. Ruth hoped to be placed after him in whose sight I shall <\/em><\/span>find favor<\/em>. The Law of Moses was uncompromisingly strict. The land was not to be reaped in its entirety, but something had to be left behind for the poor to glean. So the right to glean was not depend<\/span>ent on the whims of the landowner. However, hostile landowners, unbelieving landowners, would have ways of making gleaning difficult for the poor. So for that reason, it was better for her to look for one who was friendly toward the poor. Furthermore, Ruth may have not actually known the laws of her newly adopted country. All of this will set the stage for the attitude of Boaz toward a f<\/span>oreigner like her. Naomi agreed to Ruth\u2019s plan: <\/span>And she said unto her, Go, my daughter<\/em>. In rabbinic interpretation, the fact that Ruth is called daughter<\/em> does not mean she was a young girl, since Ruth was [cons<\/span>idered to be] forty years old at this point in time.<\/p>\n

Verse 3<\/a> in Ruth chapter 2<\/a> gives the account of how Ruth got her wish. As to her search, she went, and came and gleaned in the field after the reape<\/em><\/span>rs<\/em>. As to the place, her hap was to light on the portion of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech<\/em>. The Hebrew is rather unique here: \u201cShe chance, chanced upon the field of <\/span>Boaz.\u201d The expression is found again only in Ecclesiastes 2:14\u201315<\/a>. From a human perspective, the phrase means it was a stroke of simple good luck: she \u201cchance, chanced\u201d upon the field. The expression <\/span>emphasizes that she did not understand the full significance of what she was doing. She did not know the people; she did not know the owner of the field; she came to a field purely by chance, working a particular section of the field belonging to Boaz. But that is the human perspective. From a divine perspective, this was all divine <\/span>providence. It points to the truth that men do not control events, but the Hand of God is behind them; He works His own purpose out. The fact that Ruth came to this field, and no other, was to lead to her acquaintance with Boaz and their subsequent marriage and all that was involved, including the fact that it led to the <\/span><\/span>birth of King David. What appeared at first to be mere chance in Ruth 2:3<\/a> was the Hand of God setting the stage for the coming of David, and u<\/span>ltimately, for the coming of the Messiah. In order to fulfill the divine agenda, two things had to be present. First, Boaz had to be a gracious man in whose eyes Ruth would find favor. Second, he was to be from the same clan as Elimelech. The repetition of the fact tha<\/span>t Boaz was from the Clan of Elimelech, something already stated previously, reemphasizes that this was not really luck, it was not chance; it was the Hand of God over the actions of Ruth.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. Boaz\u2019s Inquiry about Ruth\u20142:4\u20137<\/a><\/p>\n

4And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, Jehovah be with you. And they answered him, Jehovah bless you. 5Then said Boaz unto his servant th<\/span>at was set over the reapers, Whose damsel is this? 6And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said, It is the Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab: 7A<\/span>nd she said, Let me glean, I pray you, and gather after the reapers among the sheaves. So she came, and has continued even from the morning until now, save that she tarried a little in the house.<\/p>\n

Vers<\/span>e 4<\/a> gives the account of Boaz\u2019s arrival: And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem<\/em>. His arrival is followed by his greeting: and he said unto the reapers, Jehovah be with you<\/em>. In response, they answered h<\/em><\/span>im, Jehovah bless you<\/em>. The greeting and the response suggest that this was a circle of true believers. These were the members of the Remnant of Israel of that day. So while the Book of Judges focuses <\/span>so much on the non-Remnant, this book shows there was also a Remnant during the period of the Judges.<\/p>\n

Verse 5<\/a> reports on the inquiry: Then said Boaz unto his servant that was set over the reapers<\/em>. The<\/span> Hebrew word for servant<\/em> is naar<\/span>, who was the foreman. He was responsible to supervise the workers, supply provisions for the reapers, and pay them at the end of the day. The question specifically ask<\/span>ed was: Whose damsel is this?<\/em> He called Ruth a naarah<\/span>, which is the feminine form of naar<\/span>. When the rabbis asked the question: What caught his eye?<\/em> The answer was her extreme modesty:<\/p>\n

All the other wo<\/span>men bend down to gather the ears of corn but she sits and gathers. All the other women hitch up their skirts and she keeps hers down. All the other women jest with the reapers while she is reserved. All the other wom<\/span>en gather from between the sheaves while she gathers from that which is abandoned.26<\/a><\/p>\n

Verses 6<\/a> to 7<\/a> record the foreman\u2019s answer. In verse 6<\/a>, he identified her in two ways. First: It is <\/span>the Moabitish damsel; she was the young Moabite woman. Second: He said that she came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab. So this fact has obviously become well known. In verse 7<\/a>, he described <\/span>her labor. Her request was, Let me glean, I pray you, and gather after the reapers among the sheaves. Her request was threefold. First, she asked to be allowed to glean. Second, she asked that she might also be allo<\/span>wed to gather. This would mean that she would glean first, leaving her gleanings in different parts of the field, and then she would return and gather all the piles together. Third, she asked to glean among the sheaves following the reapers. This was the most unusual part of her request. Normally the harvesters cut the grain with the scythes while the female workers followed them, binding the cut grain into shea<\/span>ves. Her request was that she might follow the harvesters and gather up any grain that has fallen from the sheaves that had been prepared for binding. This would be a highly unusual privilege if it were granted. The view of some interpreters is that the foreman had not yet given her permission, because, if he had, then Boaz doing so later would be anti-climatic, and not as generous as it first implies. These interpreters would translate the Hebrew word <\/span><\/span><\/span>amad<\/span> not as \u201cdiligence,\u201d but in its more literal sense as \u201cshe stood.\u201d That is, she \u201cstood\u201d in the sense of waiti<\/span>ng for permission. Since the foreman did not have the authority to give her this permission, he had to wait until the arrival of Boaz; and this might explain why, in verse 8<\/a>, Boaz immediately responde<\/span>d with that permission. She had been waiting for so long that the field had become her home, for the Masoretic Text reads: this her sitting\/dwelling not a little. While that is the view of some, the context implies that she had<\/span> already been given permission and had been working very hard by the time Boaz arrived. So it is more accurate to conclude that the foreman did give her permission and Boaz confirmed that permission, and extended that permission upon his arrival. Another <\/span>possibility is that the foreman gave permission to glean and to gather, but not among the sheaves. Since it was unusua<\/span>l, Boaz would have to grant it. The foreman\u2019s observation was that she was a diligent worker: So she came, and has continued even from morning until now, save that she tarried a little in the house<\/em>. T<\/span>he answer of the foreman shows three things. First, Boaz did not prohibit any poor person from gleaning in his field. Second, that Ruth asked permission of the overseer of the reapers and availed herself<\/span> of this permission with untiring zeal from the first thing in the morning so that she might get the necessary support for her mother-in-law and herself. Third, Ruth\u2019s history was well known to the foreman and also to Boaz, although Boaz saw her only now for the first time.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

C. Boaz\u2019s Grace Towards Ruth\u20142:8\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

8Then said Boaz unto Ruth, Hear you not, my daughter? Go not to glean in another field, neither pass from hence, but abide here fast by my maidens. 9Let your eyes be on the field that they do reap, and go you after them: have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch you? and when you are thirsty, go unto the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn. 10Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take knowledge of me, seeing I am a foreigner? 11And Boaz answered and said unto her, It has fully been showed me, all that you have done unto your mother-in-law since the death of your husband; and how you have left your father and your mother, and the land of your nativity, and are come unto a people that you knew not heretofore. 12Jehovah recompense your work, and a full reward be given you of Jehovah, the God of Israel, under whose wings you are come to take refuge. 13Then she said, Let me find favor in your sight, my lord, for that you have comforted me, and for that you have spoken kindly unto your handmaid, though I be not as one of your handmaidens.<\/p>\n

Verses 8<\/a> to 9<\/a> record Boaz\u2019s offer to Ruth. He addressed her: Hear you not, my daughter?<\/em> The use of the term daughter<\/em> emphasizes there is a sizable age difference, as is made explicit later in 3:10<\/a>. The same term was used by Naomi of Ruth, showing an age difference. Boaz gave her an admonition to remain in his field: Go not to glean in another field<\/em>. In other words, the invitation is extended to continue gleaning in his fields permanently. She was free to continue throughout the barley harvest, which included March and April. She was free to continue throughout the wheat harvest, which included May and June. She was not to pass from hence, but abide<\/em> [with his] maidens<\/em>. He then gave her some specific instructions. First, Let your eyes be on the field that they do reap<\/em>, meaning she was to stay in this field. Second, go you after them<\/em>. The word them<\/em> is feminine and refers to the female servants. She was to be with them, to be close with them. She was to be behind them, for she was not hired as an employee; she remained a gleaner, but was free to follow immediately after the servant girls where the pickings would be the most numerous. This would do two things for Ruth. First, it would identify her with his workers and thus ward off any possible rowdies coming to attack her because they perceived she was just a poor gleaner. Second, following immediately behind Boaz\u2019s servant girls would provide her with a lot more gleanings than would normally be the case, as it would put her ahead of all the other gleaners. Third, Boaz mentioned his intervention and provision on her behalf. As for his intervention, he said, have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch you?<\/em> He had instructed all the male workers to leave her alone. As for Boaz\u2019s provision: wh<\/em>en you are thirsty, go unto the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn<\/em>. The young men had drawn the water from the well and other water sources, and she was free to drink from that same water.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A. Naomi\u2019s Plan\u20143:1\u20135<\/a><\/p>\n

1And Naomi her mother-in-law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? 2And now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maidens you were? Behold, he winnows barley to-night in the threshing-floor. 3Wash yourself therefore, and anoint you, and put your raiment upon you, and get you down to the threshing-floor, but make not yourself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. 4And it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall mark the place where he shall lie, and you shall go in, and uncover his feet, and lay you down; and he will tell you what you shall do. 5And she said unto her, All that you say I will do.<\/p>\n

The third main division of the Book of Ruth begins with Naomi\u2019s desire in verse 1<\/a>: My daughter, <\/em>shall I not seek rest for you?<\/em> The Hebrew word for rest<\/em> is manoach<\/span>. It may refer to a state of rest or a condition of rest. But in this context, it refers to the condition of rest and security to be attained through marriage, as was already implied back in Ruth 1:9<\/a>. This is what Naomi prayed would happen in 1:8\u20139<\/a>, and now she was about to answer her own prayer. This is an example of the divine and human working together to carry out the purpose of God. The purpose Naomi gives is that it may be well with you<\/em>. Naomi was faced with three issues. First, how could the name of Elimelech be maintained among the tribes of Israel since both her sons were now dead? Second, what steps should be taken to protect her inheritance, which Elimelech had left in Naomi\u2019s trust? Third, how could she provide rest and security for her faithful daughter-in-law? A marriage between Ruth and Boaz would solve all three problems. This also meant that Naomi would renounce her own claim to Boaz as the close relative and give it to Ruth, the younger widow.<\/p>\n

Verses 2<\/a> to 4<\/a> in Ruth chapter 3<\/a> describe the plan. Verse 2<\/a> states Boaz\u2019s position by relationship: And now is not Boaz our kinsman<\/em>; and by employment: with wh<\/em>ose maidens you were<\/em>. His location is noted: Behold, he winnows barley to-night in the threshing floor<\/em>. A threshing floor was a flat, hard area, usually the bedrock on a slightly raised hill or platform. The grain was beaten out of the stalks with instruments, such as a toothed sledge, or trodden over by an animal such as an ox or an ass, as in Micah 4:13<\/a>. This was followed by winnowing, which involved throwing the grain into the air with a fork or a shovel and allowing the wind to carry the chaff away. In Israel, the westerly winds come in the late afternoon and continue until sunset. The grain was then removed from the threshing floor and placed in heaps, either to be sold or carried manually on carts for storage in the granary. This process is referred to in the Song of Solomon 7:13<\/a> andAmos 2:13<\/a>. The straw became fodder for the animals, and the chaff was used for fuel. Threshing and winnowing times were times of festivity and rejoicing because these activities marked the climax of the harvest season. The joy of threshing and winnowing is pictured in Isaiah 41:14\u201316<\/a>. Naomi knew that Boaz would be sleeping at the threshing floor in order to protect his investment.<\/p>\n

Verse 3<\/a> in Ruth chapter 3<\/a> details Ruth\u2019s preparations. Ruth is to beautify herself in order to make herself look as attractive as possible for Boaz. First, Naomi said, Wash yourself therefore<\/em>. She was to take a bath. This is similar language used regarding Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11:2<\/a>. This was a normal first step in preparation for marriage and\/or a sexual encounter. Second, Naomi said, anoint<\/em> yourself, apply perfume. This was usually perfumed olive oil to combat body odor. Third, she told Ruth to put your raiment on<\/em>, to put on her dress. The Hebrew word is simlah<\/span>. Being poor she probably did not have a \u201cbest dress,\u201d and so, this might mean to exchange her clothes of mourning and widowhood for regular clothes. It might also refer to the outer garment or cape since the word is singular, which would, in turn, protect her from the chill of the night as well as allow her to remain anonymous for as long as she chose. Based upon an analogy with 2 Samuel 12:20<\/a>, which also mentions bathing, perfume, and a sim<\/span>lah<\/span> dress when David completed his mourning period for his son, it might imply that Ruth was still wearing the garments of her widowhood. Therefore, Naomi is advising Ruth to end her period of mourning over her widowhood and go on with her life. If all this time she had been wearing the clothes of widowhood and mourning, it would explain why Boaz had not moved to court her, for he would not impose himself on her as long as she was still in a time of mourning. This also parallels Ezekiel 16:8\u201314<\/a>, which deals with a bride preparing for her wedding. Naomi then told her the actions that she was to perform. As for the place, she was to get you down to the threshing-floor<\/em>. It was the place where Boaz would spend the night. She was to remain anonymous: make not yourself known unto the man<\/em>. And she was to remain anonymous until he shall have done eating and drinking<\/em>. The eating and drinking<\/em> would put Boaz in a very relaxed mood and cause him to drop off to sleep more quickly. This was a very important element of the plan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

2. Boaz\u2019s Response to Ruth\u2019s Requests\u20143:10\u201313<\/a><\/p>\n

10And he said, Blessed be you of Jehovah, my daughter: you have showed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as you followed not young men, whether poor or rich. 11And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to you all that you say; for all the city of my people does know that you are a worthy woman. 12And now it is true that I am a near kinsman; howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I. 13Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto you the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman\u2019s part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to you, then will I do the part of a kinsman to you, as Jehovah lives: lie down until the morning.<\/p>\n

Verse 10<\/a> begins by recounting once again the chesed<\/span> of Ruth. Boaz\u2019s blessing to Ruth is: Blessed be you of Jehovah, my daughter<\/em>. The mention of God\u2019s Name shows recognition of His role in all that is taking place; and by calling her my daughter<\/em>, Boaz emphasizes the age difference between the two, though for Ruth this makes no difference at all. Then Boaz went on to describe her actual chesed<\/span>: you have showed more kindness at the latter end than at<\/em> the beginning<\/em>. Her beginning<\/em> kindness was her loyalty to Naomi and her willingness to forsake family and homeland and religion out of devotion to Naomi. The present kindness of her chesed<\/span> is that she now came to a man who was probably Naomi\u2019s age. Her willingness to provide Naomi an heir by marrying a goel<\/span> like Boaz even exceeded her very impressive kindness earlier. The evidence he provided was inasmuch as you followed not young men, whether poor or rich<\/em>. This might imply that she had received marriage proposals from some of the young men but turned them down since she wanted to fulfill the obligations to her dead husband. If so, she did not follow her natural inclinations of seeking younger men; for the sake of family loyalty, she did not give in. There is an implied compliment with the use of the definite article the<\/em> young men. Boaz was certain that if she wished, she could have married a rich young man. Otherwise, there was no point in praising her faithfulness to family obligations. So she was willing to pass up the younger men who were not goels<\/span>, for that would have only benefited Ruth and not Naomi. Thus she was willing to take on the family obligations of her own free will. She was not acting out of passion or greed but only out of love for Naomi; she considered her own happiness as secondary. Ruth could have married for love or money, but she chose to marry for family loyalty. So, her new display of chesed<\/span> would therefore merit even greater repayment. The question was: What is greater than the salvation of a whole family line? The answer was: to become the mother of the royal house of Israel and be in the messianic line.<\/p>\n

Verse 11<\/a> shows Boaz comforting Ruth. The comfort was communicated when he said, And now, my daughter, fear not<\/em>. The promise was: I will do to<\/em> you all that you say<\/em>. In other words, he will fulfill his obligations as the kinsman-redeemer. The reason was that all the city of my people do know that you are a worthy woman<\/em>. In Hebrew, that phrase is \u201ca woman of valor.\u201d So it is obvious that in the two to three months since Ruth arrived at Bethlehem, her reputation as a woman of virtue had become common knowledge all over the city, especially among the city elders. What this shows is that none of Ruth\u2019s actions in this passage were considered immoral.<\/p>\n

Having said this, however, in verse 12<\/a>, he pointed out one obstacle. He acknowledged the fact that it is true that I am a near kinsman<\/em>. It is true that Boaz was a kinsman-redeemer, but the unknown fact, apparently to the two widows, was: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I<\/em>. In other words, while Boaz was a kinsman-redeemer, he was not the kinsman-redeemer. Under the Mosaic Law, the duty fell upon the closest male relative, unless he waved his right of priority. As an upright Israelite, Boaz bowed before the Law rather than scheme to circumvent it. This may explain why he did not make his move earlier.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Negotiations\u20144:1\u20136<\/a><\/p>\n

1Now Boaz went up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. 2And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit you down here. And they sat down. 3And he said unto the near kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, sells the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech\u2019s: 4And I thought to disclose it unto you, saying, Buy it before them that sit here, and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it: but if you will not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem it besides you; and I am after you. And he said, I will redeem it. 5Then said Boaz, What day you buy the field of the hand of Naomi, you must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. 6And the near kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: take you my right of redemption on you; for I cannot redeem it.<\/p>\n

Verses 1<\/a> to 2<\/a> describe Boaz\u2019s stage-setting at the city gate, with verse 1a<\/a> giving his position: Now Boaz went up to the gate<\/em>. The city gate<\/em> was the place where legal transactions were concluded. For example, Abraham purchased a burial place for Sarah at the city gate<\/em>(Gen. 23<\/a>). Absalom won converts by offering to settle their disputes in their favor in the city gate<\/em> (2 Sam. 15:2<\/a>). Kings would sit at the city gate<\/em> for legal business (2 Sam. 19:8<\/a>; Jer. 38:7<\/a>). The city gate<\/em> was also the place for judging the man-slayer (Josh. 20:4<\/a>). Criminal acts were judged at the city gate<\/em> (Deut. 21:18\u201321<\/a>, 22:15<\/a>, and 22:24<\/a>). It was also possible to have a miscarriage of justice at the city gate<\/em> (Amos 5:10<\/a>, 5:12<\/a>, and 5:15<\/a>). The city gate<\/em> was a place for social intercourse (Ps. 127:5<\/a>). It was considered tragic when the elders ceased from the city gate<\/em> (Lam. 5:14<\/a>). What is most relevant here is Deuteronomy 15:7\u20138<\/a>, in which the city gate<\/em> was where transaction and legal business was carried out. Boaz\u2019s action was that he sat him down there<\/em>, signaling that he was ready to conduct business.<\/p>\n

Verse 1b<\/a> introduces the near kinsman: and behold, the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by<\/em>. Then came the call: unto whom he said, Ho, such a one!<\/em> The Hebrew reads peloni almoni<\/span>, an idiom used in place of a proper name. It means \u201cthe anonymous one,\u201d and has the basic meaning of \u201cMr. So-and-So.\u201d It is used twice elsewhere (2 Kings 6:8<\/a>; 1 Samuel 21:2<\/a>, in the English text or 21:3<\/a> in the Hebrew text). Boaz said to the unnamed kinsman: turn aside, sit down here<\/em>. The response was that the man turned aside, and sat down<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verse 2<\/a> presents the court of witnesses. The total number was:ten men of the elders of the city<\/em>. He chose elders<\/em> because they would serve as judges. They were to deal with criminal cases (Deut. 21:18\u201321<\/a>), and with family matters, such as levirate marriage (Deut. 25:7\u20139<\/a>). In rabbinic interpretation, this became the basis for the minyan<\/span>, the ten men required by Jewish law to be present before a Jewish synagogue service could be conducted. Their response was that they sat down<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Verses 3<\/a> to 4a<\/a> record Boaz\u2019s challenge to the near kinsman. Verse 3<\/a> describes the situation concerning family property. He pointed out that Naomi, that is come again out of the coun<\/em>try of Moab, sells the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech\u2019s<\/em>. In the Hebrew text the tense is perfect, which normally indicates completed action, and therefore it would mean that it had already been sold. But Ruth 4:5<\/a> and 4:9<\/a> indicate that she was in the process of selling the land, and so the perfect tense would then indicate her determination or resolve to sell the land, and thus, most translations use the present tense, which is correct. Naomi had owned the land, but apparently had not realized any income from it. Now, due to her poverty, she was being forced to sell the land, and was about to do so. As Jeremiah 32:6\u201312<\/a> shows, the land is normally first offered to a member of the family before being offered to anyone else. This was what Naomi was now doing. The land had belonged to Elimelech when he left for Moab, and she had not been free to do anything with it until her recent return only about two or three months earlier. Not being able to gain any income from it, and being in poverty, she was now putting it up for sale. All this shows that the land had not yet been sold; otherwise, it would have to be redeemed from its new owner and not from Naomi. So, with this situation, the final drama begins. Ruth 4:4a<\/a> presents Boaz\u2019s intent: And I thought to disclose it unto you<\/em>. Boaz then proceeded to give him two options. The first option was to Buy it before them that<\/em> sit here<\/em>, meaning the people in general, and before the elders of my people<\/em>, these are the specific seated ones; If you will redeem it, redeem it<\/em>. The second option was but if you will not redeem it,<\/em> then tell me<\/em>. The reason was that I may know<\/em>. He continued, for there is none to redeem it besides you<\/em>, since he was the first in line; and I am after you<\/em>, i.e. Boaz was second in line. So what Boaz will do is dependent upon what the near kinsman will do.<\/p>\n

Verse 4b<\/a> reveals the kinsman\u2019s positive response: And he said, I will redeem it<\/em>. Since Naomi was about to sell the land she inherited, it was better for it to stay within the family rather than for a stranger to get it. This much he was willing to do; for, in spite of the cost of the redemption, he would still make a profit from the fertility of the land. The reason Naomi would not have gotten any income from it is because, by the time she returned, the time of planting had already passed, and it was now the time of reaping.<\/p>\n

In verse 5<\/a>, Boaz then presented to the other kinsman one further obligation, of which he was obviously unaware. Boaz did this with two conditions. The first condition was: What day you buy the field of the hand o<\/em>f Naomi<\/em>; referring to the right of redemption. Then came the second condition: you must buy it also of Ruth<\/em>. Then he stated her nationality: the Moabitess<\/em>. Some interpreters believe Boaz emphasized her ethnic national identity to steer him away, but this may not be the case; this may have been for legal reasons rather than to scare off a racially prejudiced kinsman. Boaz also pointed out Ruth\u2019s status: the wife of the dead<\/em>. This, too, was a case of legality and a technical legal term. The Hebrew word used here is qanah<\/span>, and the word normally means \u201cto purchase\u201d or \u201cto buy.\u201d The kinsman would buy Naomi\u2019s property, and she would then have some income. But this would not solve the problem of an heir. The term is also used here as a legal perfect (meaning a legally valid transaction); it was a decisive legal transaction. The legal term here would mean broadly \u201cto marry as part of a legal transaction.\u201d Boaz thus informed the court that Ruth came along with the property. If he bought the field, he automatically bought her as well, and the purpose would be: to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance<\/em>. This was the concept behind the transaction. Here, the name<\/em> refers to Elimelech\u2019s personal existence among and remembrance by his own clan. He was the deceased of Ruth 4:3<\/a>. The inheritance was Elimelech\u2019s share in the tribal land passed down from his ancestors over the centuries. It was important to an Israelite to have an heir living on the family land because the loss of land-heirs amounted to personal annihilation, which in the biblical context was one of the greatest tragedies possible. An Israelite\u2019s afterlife was perceived to be dependent upon having living descendants dwelling on ancestral soil; for without them, he ceased to exist in the memory of the tribe or the clan. The issue here was not the continual conscious existence of the soul after death, which, biblically, was always true anyway, but the continual existence of the person in the memory of the family, the clan, and the tribe. To raise up the name of the dead<\/em>, then, was to provide an heir to keep the deceased in existence on the ancestral property of his inheritance. Thus, the purpose here was not simply to retain the land or to care for Ruth, but to ensure that Elimelech\u2019s family line survived.<\/p>\n

Three observations should be noted regarding Ruth 4:5<\/a>. First, the issue of levirate marriage was secondary here. While the kinsman-redeemer was not obligated to redeem the property, if he did choose to do so, he would also be obligated to perform the second duty, that of marriage. Second, when Elimelech died, the property went to Mahlon; and when Mahlon died, the property then included the widow Ruth. She was now part of the redemption responsibility, and the property would go to any son born to her to perpetuate the family line. Third, this was not strictly the levirate law as spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:5\u201310<\/a>. In that context, only when brothers were living together and one of them died was the other brother to be the kinsman-redeemer. The obligation related specifically to brothers and did not comment on more distant relatives. The levirate law was in effect only when no son had been born to the deceased person. This text, then, is dealing with the extension of the levirate law to cover a matter of clan responsibility, not just a matter of immediate family in the strict sense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Table 11. Ruth\u2019s Progression in Social Standing<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Status (in Hebrew)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Meaning<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ruth Ref.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

nochriyah<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Foreigner<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2:10<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

shipah<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Beneath a lower servant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2:13<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

amah<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Maidservant<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3:9<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

iishah<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Wife<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4:13<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Then came the s<\/span>exual union: and he went in unto her<\/em>. This is a common Hebrew idiom for the entrance of a man into the bridal tent or the bridal chamber of his wife for the purpose of sexual intercourse. The rabbis s<\/span>tate that Boaz died on their wedding night, after the intercourse, another rabbinic tradition that has no textual or historical validity.<\/p>\n

Then came the pregnancy: and Jehovah gave her conception<\/em>. Ten <\/span>years of barrenness now end due to divine intervention. The Hebrew term for conception<\/em>, heirayon<\/span>, appears only two other times in the Hebrew text: Genesis 3:16<\/a> and Hosea 9:11<\/a>. The birth of their offsp<\/span>ring followed: and she bore a son<\/em>. God has now paid Ruth\u2019s wages in full: He gave her a son and not a daughter, thus allowing the family line to continue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

C. The Neighbor Women\u2019s Blessing of Naomi\u20144:14\u201317<\/a><\/p>\n

14And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be Jehovah, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman; and let his name be famous in Israel. 15And he shall be unto you a restorer of life, and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him. 16And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it. 17And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.<\/p>\n

Verses 14<\/a> to 15<\/a> report on the declaration of the women. The blessing was: Blessed be Jehovah<\/em>. The reason was that he has not left you this day without a near kinsman<\/em>. The redeemer here was not Boaz, but the son that has just been born, because he will be the one who will someday redeem the whole of Naomi\u2019s possessions. As the son of Ruth, he was also the son of Naomi, and as such, would take away Naomi\u2019s reproach of childlessness. Ruth was the only one who could raise up a son to inherit the estate of Elimelech, and so this son will comfort Naomi and tend to her in her old age and thereby become her true goel<\/span>. This is the only time the term goel<\/span> is used of a child, not of an adult. This is the child that Boaz promised would carry on the name of Elimelech and inherit his property. Next the hope of the women was declared: let his name be famous in Israel<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>SIX<\/em><\/p>\n

The Genealogy\u2014<\/em>4:18\u201322<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

18Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez begat Hezron, 19and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, 20and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon, 21and <\/span>Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, 22and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.<\/p>\n

The book concludes with a list of ten generations:<\/p>\n

First, Perez: Now these are the generations of Perez<\/em>. It start<\/span>s with Perez<\/em>, because he was the founder of that family clan within the Tribe of Judah to which Boaz and Elimelech belonged. Perez<\/em> was the son of Judah through Tamar.<\/p>\n

Second, Hezron: Perez begat Hezro<\/em><\/span>n<\/em>. Hezron<\/em> either immigrated to or was born in Egypt (Gen. 46:12<\/a>). He was the head of the Hezron Clan mentioned in Numbers 26:21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Third, Ram: and Hezron begat Ram<\/em>, also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:9<\/a>.<\/p>\n

F<\/span>ourth, Amminadab: Ram begat Amminadab<\/em>. He was the father-in-law of Aaron, who married his daughter Elisheba (Ex. 6:23<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Fifth, Nahshon: Amminadab begat Nahshon<\/em>. He was the prince of the Tribe of Judah<\/span> at the time of Moses and is mentioned in Exodus 6:23<\/a> and in Numbers 1:7<\/a>, 2:3<\/a>, 7:12<\/a>, 7:17<\/a>, and 10:14<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sixth, Salmon: Nahshon begat Salmon<\/em>. Also, spelled as Salman<\/em> and Salma<\/em> in 1 Chronicles 2:10\u201311<\/a>, 2:<\/span>51<\/a>, and 2:54<\/a>. He is the one who married Rahab (Matt. 1:5<\/a>), and thus he participated in the conquest of the Land and settled in Bethlehem.<\/p>\n

Seventh, Boaz: Salmon begat Boaz<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Eighth, Obed: Boaz begat Obe<\/em><\/span>d<\/em>. According to rabbinic tradition, Obed<\/span> was born circumcised and so did not need to undergo the ritual.<\/p>\n

Ninth, Jesse: Obed begat Jesse<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Tenth, David: Jesse begat David<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The line of Boaz began with Pe<\/span>rez and not with Judah. This kept the genealogy to ten generations. The tribal identity with Judah was obvious anyway, but not which line of Judah. So this made it clear; it was from the line of Perez. There is also a levirate lin<\/span>k, which resulted in both Perez and Obed.<\/p>\n

From the conquest of the Promised Land in 1406 b.c., in which Salmon participated, until the birth of David in 1040 b.c., about <\/span>360 years elapsed. But only four generations are listed for this time period, and so, this may indicate that one or more generations were skipped.<\/p>\n

Rabbinic tradition views this passage as messianic. T<\/span>he Zohar<\/span> states:<\/p>\n

There were two women from whom were built the seat of Judah, and from whom descended King David, King Solomon, King Messiah: Tamar and Ruth. Both acted properly to do good to the dead<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Another rabbinic source makes the following statement:<\/p>\n

According to the Midrash, the monarchy came through women of pagan origins so that the kings would have an element of cruelty from the mother\u2019s<\/span> side, in addition to compassion from the father\u2019s side. This equipped them with the ability to exact revenge from Israel\u2019s enemies while treating Israel with compassion.<\/p>\n

The three scriptural episodes<\/span> leading to the emergence of David involved wondrous ways dependent on split-second timing; had the moment passed, they would have come to nothing. Lot\u2019s daughters sought to conceive from their father<\/span> because they thought the entire world had been destroyed; had they waited, they would have discovered that it was not so.46<\/a> Judah was about to pass Tamar by and continue on his way when an angel impe<\/span>lled him toward her;47<\/a> and Boaz was about to die when he wed Ruth. All this comes to teach that as soon as the time is ripe, the Messiah will not delay in coming.48<\/a><\/p>\n

According to rabbinic tradition, Ru<\/span>th lived all the way to see the reign of Solomon. That would mean she lived quite a long time, but there is no biblical evidence for this. Nevertheless, with the story of Ruth, there is the genealogical link that connects the son of Ju<\/span>dah, Perez, all the way down to King David. That serves as a bridge between the Books of Joshua and Judges and the Books of I and II Samuel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The Hebrew Bible The Hebrew Bible has three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the Hebrew canon, Ruth is found in the third division, the Ketuvim or the Writings; and it is the fifth book of the third division. It is also one of the five books known collectively as the … <\/p>\n

\u201eThe Book of Ruth\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13\/revisions\/14"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}