Brendan Technically: 2015

I'm mostly posting this here so that I can have a copy of this paper in the "cloud". If it's useful to anyone, then I'm glad it's here.

Brendan Hughes

Dr. James Van Dine

BT 250: Hermeneutics

17 April 2009

“Ruth”

Introduction

The purpose of the following is to allow the reader a greater understanding of the Old Testament Book of Ruth. One will find key background concepts as well as theological concepts that will assist in appreciating why the book was written. Knowledge of these components greatly assist the reader of Ruth in deciphering exactly what is being stated and also deters from making improper hermeneutical applications from the book. So, the historical background of Ruth will be the first subject breached.

Background

Understanding the Historical/Cultural background to the Book of Ruth is essential to understanding the meaning of the book itself. Knowing the times that the events took place gives one a greater appreciation of certain aspects of the narrative. The Book of Ruth takes place “... in the days when the judges ruled ...” (Ruth 1:1 ESV), which probably was, “...in the second half of the twelfth century, likely during the reigns of Jephthah and Samson” (Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 277). Given this date, certain customs and practices of the Israelites are brought into a greater light.

The fact that the land of Moab is mentioned is significant. Moab was nation-state on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, in the area known as Transjordan. It was known for its rolling hills and fertile soil (Grohman 414), and so would have been an ideal place to escape from the famine mentioned at the beginning of Ruth. Other significant facts about the land of Moab include the relation of them to the Israelites through Abraham’s nephew, Lot (cf. Genesis 19:36). However, in Deuteronomy 23:3-6, God commands the Israelites to not associate themselves in any way with the Moabites, “...because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you”(verse 4 ESV). Therefore it was against God’s will, that Elimelech’s sons took for themselves Moabite wives, and yet God entered Ruth, a Moabitess, into the lineage of David and ultimately Christ.

Ephrathites were those who lived in the suburb of Ephrathah which was incorporated into the city of Bethlehem (Cohen 122). Mentioning Bethlehem is an important detail, because the Israelite readers would have recognized it as the birthplace of King David, and might have had some foreshadowing of the final outcome of the narrative. Bethlehem is also mentioned a few times in the book of Judges. Judges 17 and 18 tell the story of a Levite from Bethlehem who hires himself out as a household priest, first to an idolatrous man from the hill country of Ephraim and then, deserting him, to a war-party of the tribe of Dan. The concubine of the Levite mentioned in Judges 19 is also from the city of Bethlehem.

The barley harvest is another key time mentioned in the book of Ruth. As found in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, the harvest is,

The reaping of the cereal Hordeum. The barley harvest began as early as late April (especially in the lowlands: Josh 3:15) or early May, preceding the wheat harvest ca. two weeks (Ruth 2:23). The beginning of the barley harvest was marked by the bringing in of the First Fruits as a consecration of the harvest (Lev. 23:10). (Richardson 527)

So, this allows the readers, current and original, to know about what time of year it was when Naomi and Ruth returned to Bethlehem.

Gleaning was a practice instituted by God in Mosaic Law which provided a way for those without land to gather food to feed themselves and their dependents. The reapers were not allowed to pick up anything that fell to the ground during the harvest, which was then gathered by the gleaners who followed after (cf. Lev 19:9-10, Deut. 24:19-22). The fact that Ruth was gleaning shows the plight of Naomi, who, while owning a house and land, was not able to work the land herself. It also shows the willingness of Ruth to work to provide for herself and her mother-in-law. Boaz asking Ruth to glean only in his field would have spelled disaster for Ruth, as it would have limited her chances of getting enough grain to feed Naomi and herself, but Boaz intentionally took special care to see she got enough.

As mentioned above, knowing the approximate time period of the story allows the modern reader to understand that the, “... easy travel between Moab and Israel, and the lack of hostility in either land toward foreigners from the other illustrates the friendly relations that must have existed from time to time between the two peoples” (Grohman 415). However, realizing the distance between Bethlehem in Judah and even the northernmost parts of Moab help bring into perspective the danger for two women to be traveling this road. Researching the significance of Ruth's response to Naomi's pleading her to return shows the reader that Ruth is totally dedicated to Naomi's cause, even after death (cf. Ruth 1:16-17). Knowledge of the history and culture of the people allows for a clearer understanding of the motives behind certain actions of the characters.

Some historical/cultural issues brought up in the last half of the narrative also help shine the light of interpretation. These include questions such as: What exactly is a “threshing floor”? Why did Boaz go to the city gate? Why did Naomi instruct Ruth to uncover Boaz’s feet? What is a “kinsman-redeemer”?, and why was Obed laid on Naomi’s lap?

Research has shown that two of these questions are, in fact, related to one another. The answer to: What is a kinsman-redeemer? also answers the question: Why was Obed laid on Naomi's lap? Both have to do with the levirate marriage laws of Israel. Levirate law is, “[t]he legal provision that if brothers live together and one of them dies leaving no son, the other brother shall marry the widow. The first son of this union shall take the name of the brother who died (Deut. 25:5-10)” (Baab, “Levirate”, 116). Since Ruth's husband, Mahlon, died without leaving a son, his brother would have been under legal obligation to provide a son by the wife of his deceased brother. However, both sons and father die, thereby leaving not only Ruth without a son, but Naomi as well. “The act of Boaz in the Book of Ruth extends the levirate custom to other male relatives of the deceased in the event no brothers survive” (282). Because all immediate relatives were dead, Boaz took upon himself the duty of the kinsman-redeemer, and therefore gave “Elimelech” a son. This is why Obed was lain on Naomi’s lap and she became his nurse.

A threshing floor is a communal area somewhat outside of town, usually up on a hill, where the farmers separate the chaff from the grain. A hand stone could be used or an oxen walking in circles over it. The Israelites, in Deuteronomy 25:4 are told, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (NASB). This process would take all day and then the men would sleep by their grain piles before having them carted away in the morning (Richardson, “Thresing”, 636). Ruth, therefore, was needing to come secretly to Boaz, in such a way as to not wake the other men at the threshing floor. Which is why Naomi told her to, “...notice the place where he lies” (Ruth 3:4 NASB). Naomi did not want Ruth to make any embarrassing mistakes.

Boaz went to the city gate because it would have been a good place to find someone from the city. Since all those within the city must pass through it to go out to their fields, chances were good that Boaz could find the closer kinsman. Also, the gate was a place where legal business took place. “The gate (i.e., the space inside the gate) might be the place of market (II Kings 7:1,18) or the place where the elders and judges or king might sit officially ....” (McCown 355). So, in order to legally redeem Elimelech's land and Ruth, Boaz went to the gate to do so in front of the elders of the city.

It is unknown, as far as this researcher could find, why Naomi instructed Ruth to uncover the feet of Boaz. Walton, Matthews and Chavalas suggest that the language in those verses is provocative. They suggest this because in Israel during that time period, “feet” could be a euphemism for the sexual organs. They were sure to not say that it was what was meant in the Ruth passage, but rather suggested that the ambiguity of terms might be meant to catch the reader's/listener's attention (281).

Interpretive Issues

Second, the reader must also understand a few key interpretive issues to more fully understand the meaning of Ruth. These issues include the literary genre of the work, the theological context in which it was written, key terms and other key concepts found in the book. The literary genre that Ruth fits under is known as narrative. Old Testament narrative is a literary form with sequential action involving plot, setting and characters. The narrative shows how one should live or how not to by the actions of the characters.

Knowing the theological context in which Ruth was written is also essential to understanding it. The names of God used in the book are part of the theological context. In the Book of Ruth three separate names are used when referring to God. These include God: “Elohim,” LORD: “Yahweh,” and Almighty: “Shaddai” Understanding what each of these names mean brings one to a closer knowledge of exactly how God is revealed through the book. Elohim is a generic name for God used only once by Ruth in her persuading of Naomi to allow her to remain with her. Ruth claims Naomi’s God as her own which helps the reader understand the depth of her commitment. Yahweh is the covenant name of God to His people. This name, used primarily by Naomi, signifies her claim on His promise to remain with His people. She, as an Israelite, feels she has every right to claim this promise. Her use of this name helps the reader understand that He is not some god but is rather the God who has covenanted Himself to His people. Shaddai means “… the one who is (self-)sufficient” (Hamilton 907). Naomi is the only character to ever refer to God by this name, but the reader can gather that she sees God as completely in control of her life. To her, He is “the Almighty” (Ruth 1:20 NASB).

God does not ever speak in the narrative of Ruth but many things are ascribed to Him. As mentioned above, He is seen as one in control of circumstances of everyday life and is often called upon to “bless” or “deal kindly with” people in their lives. God is also blamed by Naomi for the loss of her husband and sons (cf. Ruth 1:20). He is called by Ruth to punish herself if she does not keep her promise to remain true to Naomi (1:17). Ultimately He is also seen as the one in control of reversing Naomi’s tragic situation and is blessed by the people for His action in restoring her.

God also acts to bless His people. He blesses Naomi through Ruth and later, Boaz. Ruth remains with Naomi even in time of trouble and Naomi is blessed by that as well. Later, when Ruth gleans in the field of Boaz, he is able to bless both Ruth and Naomi by giving to Ruth an abundance of grain with which she returns to her mother’s house. The ultimate blessing of Naomi by God through Ruth is by Ruth’s marriage to Boaz and the son proceeding from that union. Obed is arguably the greatest blessing to Naomi.

Sin is another important theological concept in the Bible. However, sin/evil is never explicitly stated in the Book of Ruth. One might still be able to make a few inferences from other Biblical texts. An Israelite family leaving the Promised Land might be considered as sinning. The famine that was in the land could also potentially be seen as a product of the disobedience of the people to God’s law according to the curses of Deuteronomy 28. Also the failure of the nearer kinsman to fulfill his role as kinsman redeemer might also be seen as sin. Finally, the marriage of an Israelite to a Moabite is also disobedient to God’s command, yet throughout the narrative none of these are commented on by the author as being evil or sinful.

God’s acting to counteract the effects of evil and deliver His people is another key theme seen in the Book of Ruth. God’s judgment might possibly be seen in the deaths of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon. They were Israelites who had left the land and therefore their deaths could be a result of judgment. However, this could be considered as counteracted by Ruth clinging to Naomi and claiming her God. Boaz is also used to counteract Naomi’s not following Torah. His faith and righteousness are contrasted with Naomi’s pursuit of him for Ruth. However, no explicit reference is made of God’s judgment of sin. God does deliver Naomi by bringing her safely to the Promised Land and ultimately blesses her with a son, through Ruth, who is found to be part of David’s ancestry at the end of the narrative.

Another important factor in considering the content of Ruth is knowledge of key words and their meanings. This researcher has chosen out two words he deems important to a greater understanding of Ruth. These words are g’l and hsd. The word g’l is translated as “relative” / “close relative” / or “kinsman” in different translations of the Bible. This word is found prominently in the story of Ruth. G’l, while being translated by the words mentioned above, has a variety of meanings, depending upon the context in which it is used. The meanings most common are in the legal context (Hubbard 787). As Hubbard observes: “The root g’l … primarily represent technical legal terminology of Israelite family law. More than half their occurrences concentrate in legal instructions …” (790). So one can see that the most common meaning of the word g’l, in the legal context, is that of a redeemer who buys back property sold by a relative who was in need. This function was to keep the land that God had given to specific Israelite tribes within the families appointed. Another context would be, “… topically related narratives” (790). These would include usages in Joshua, Ruth and Jeremiah. “The root’s use elsewhere probably derives from its original legal usage and still retains that original legal nuance” (790). G’l or ga’al also can mean, “… to do the part of a kinsman and thus to redeem his kin from difficulty or danger” (Harris, “g’l,” 144). There is another Hebrew word translated “redeem” in the Old Testament but the difference between it and g’l is that g’l has the added emphasis of the responsibility belonging to a near kinsman (“g’l,” 144). So the meaning of g’l is characteristically one who redeems a kinsman’s property after that kinsman has had to sell due to poverty or rough circumstances.

In the book of Ruth this primary meaning seems to fit perfectly. “But, the two things, kinsman redemption and levirate marriage, are to be distinguished. The word go’el “redeemer,” does not refer to the latter institution” (“g’l,” 144). When Boaz approaches the nearer kinsman to redeem the land that Naomi had to sell in her poverty, the kinsman was glad to do it, thinking that the land would then revert to him upon the death of Naomi. However, when Boaz introduces the stipulation that he must marry Ruth and carry on the line of Elimelech, the nearer kinsman backs out of the deal, saying, “I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance” (Ruth 4:6). Because his children would not receive the inheritance, but Elimelech’s, he refuses to perform his duty, so Boaz does. While the levirate marriage of Boaz to Ruth has nothing to do with the word g’l, it is important to distinguish the marriage from the redemption. Boaz buying Elimelech’s field is him performing g’l, not his marriage to Ruth and the carrying on of Elimelech’s line through her. Therefore, in the context of Ruth 3:9 g’l or ga’al means the redemption of the land that Naomi must sell due to her impoverished state.

The second word under study is hsd. This word has been, “…translated with words like mercy, kindness, [and] love,” depending on which English translation of the text one chooses to use (Harris, “hsd,” 305). As g’l, hsd also has a variety of meanings depending upon the context in which it is used. Baer and Gordon note that, “The concept of faithfulness, steadfast love, or more generally kindness, represented by hesed, has a strongly relational aspect that is essential to any proper definition of the term” (211). However there are those who disagree with this definition and would prefer one leaning more towards the loyalty rather than the love involved. “…God’s hesed was not basically mercy, but loyalty to his covenant obligations, a loyalty which the Israelites should also show” (Harris, “hsd,” 305). The basic understanding of the word seems to be divided into two camps. One camp espouses the mercy God shows while the other holds that it is His loyalty to the covenant.

The writer would stress that the theological difference is considerable whether the Ten Commandments are stipulations to a covenant restricted to Israel to which God remains true and to which he demands loyalty, or whether they are eternal principles stemming from God’s nature and his creation to which all men are obligated and according to which God will judge in justice or beyond that will show love, mercy and kindness. (“hsd,” 305)

So this writer is inclined to agree that hesed or hsd is a word better translated as kindness or mercy according to this argument.

In the Book of Ruth, therefore, one can see a further manifestation of this definition. Ruth 3:10 states, “Then he said, ‘May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich.’” The word translated “kindness” here is the Hebrew word hsd. Kindness is a good translation because it shows the love and kindness which Ruth had towards Naomi, which Boaz recognizes. Harris notes, “The beautiful story of Ruth is tarnished by considering Ruth’s action as motivated by contractual obligations” (“hsd,” 305). If one takes hsd to be some sort of obligated loyalty or love, the actions taken by Ruth in this book, and by God in the rest of Scripture lose a lot of value. The beauty of the love and kindness shown is that it is from the heart and not something that God or Ruth had to do. Ruth’s hesed for her mother-in-law was a kindness to which she was not obligated, but to which she clung through her own choice. “The word ‘lovingkindness’ of the KJV is archaic, but not far from the fullness of meaning of the word” (“hsd,” 307).

In addition to these words there are a few other key concepts one must understand in order to grasp the message of Ruth. For instance, one must understand the plight of single women in the time. A single woman, in those days, had little opportunity to take care of herself let alone a family. This is why God instituted the levirate marriage law mentioned above. Since women could not thrive on their own, God tasked the men of the family to care for the widows. This helps one gain understanding as to the motivation behind Ruth’s actions concerning Boaz. Naomi was, “…seek[ing] security for [Ruth]” (Ruth 3:1), by teaching her how to approach Boaz and remind him of his duty. Other key concepts have already been discussed above.

Message

The message of the Book of Ruth is: Boaz is used by God as an instrument of blessing to Ruth by caring for her needs despite her status as an alien, due to her forsaking her people and following after Him, and to Naomi by providing a son to her through Ruth despite her lack of obedience to Torah.

I. Naomi suffers the consequences of disobedience to God’s law, however Ruth follows her and claims her God.

a. An Israelite man takes his wife and two sons and leaves the Promised Land, which God had given to the nation, due to a famine, for the nation of Moab which God forbid the Israelites from fellowshipping with. (1:1 – 7)

b. Ruth forsakes her people and her gods to cling to the LORD and to follow Naomi and claims Naomi’s people as her own, despite Naomi’s pleadings to the contrary. (1:8 – 18)

c. Naomi, though forewarned by the law of the consequences of disobedience, blames God for the troubles that have befallen her in a foreign land. (1:19 – 22)

II. Boaz, a near kinsman of Elimelech, provides an answer to Naomi’s dilemma, being willing to care for her and Ruth by showing them every kindness.

a. Ruth, guided by the Lord, gleans in the field of Boaz who is a close relative of Naomi’s and is therefore capable of redeeming Naomi’s land. (2:1 – 7)

b. Boaz honors Ruth, despite the fact that she is an alien, because of her hesed for his kinswoman Naomi, and cares for both through her. (2:8 – 17)

c. Naomi rejoices, seeing a solution to her desire to find Ruth a husband in Boaz, who is a close enough relative to fulfill the duty of kinsman-redeemer. (2:18 – 23)

III. Boaz correctly follows the law despite Ruth’s advances and Naomi’s machinations to make him Ruth’s husband.

a. Naomi instructs Ruth on how to remind Boaz of his duty as the kinsman-redeemer, in spite of the closer relative. (3:1 – 5)

b. Boaz promises Ruth that he will settle the matter and thanks her for allowing him the opportunity, yet still follows the law by checking with the closer relative before choosing to redeem Naomi. (3:6 – 18)

IV. Boaz correctly follows the law and is rewarded by being able to marry Ruth and is therefore honored as David’s ancestor.

a. Boaz fulfills his duty as kinsman-redeemer, buying back Elimelech’s land and the levirate marriage law by marrying Ruth and preserving Elimelech’s name. (4:1 – 12)

b. Ruth bears Boaz a son, named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of the great Israelite king David. (4:13 – 17)

c. Proof is given of David’s lineage and fulfills Jacob’s blessing on Judah. (4:18 – 22)

The Book of Ruth develops a message throughout its entirety. Starting with the time reference to, “…the days when the judges governed,”(1:1), one begins to get a picture of the state of affairs in Israel at the time when the narrative was taking place. This time reference indicates that the book was written some time after the period of the judges, and yet was a time that the intended readers were still expected to know about. The Israelites would remember that, “In those days there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). They might then have associated the famine mentioned in verse 1 with the cursing found in Deuteronomy 28 for disobedience to God’s law.

In Ruth 1:1 – 7 it is seen that Elimelech takes his family away from Israel. The readers would have known that this was the Land promised to their forefathers and to them, and the present reader can also realize it as the instrument of God’s blessing and or cursing of Israel depending on their obedience or disobedience to the Law. One also sees that Elimelech takes his family to the land of Moab, which in Deuteronomy 23:4 they are told not to associate with and in verse 6 are commanded by God to, “…never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.” Israelites would have known this command and could see that the end result would not be a good one. This is vindicated when one reads Ruth 1:3 – 6 and finds that Elimelech and his two sons die in Moab from an unknown, or at least unwritten cause. Verse 7 finds Naomi returning to the Promised Land with the two Moabite women that her sons had married before they died.

The next section (1:8 – 18) finds Naomi, Ruth and Orpah stopped on the road between Moab and the land of Judah. The readers would have understood that this distance was quite a ways to travel, especially for three women. However no mention is made of the possible dangers the travelers might have faced. At this point, Naomi successfully convinces Orpah to return to Moab, but Ruth clings to her. Naomi calls upon God to bless them as they go on their way back to, “…her mother’s house,”(1:8), which is a reference to the one who could prepare them for marriage, and care for them. Orpah returns, but Ruth decides to forsake her own people and her gods to follow Naomi.

But Ruth said, ‘Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me. (1:16-18)

Ruth’s intense loyalty to Naomi convinces Naomi to stop trying to persuade her to leave. The readers, if they were thinking of Deuteronomy 23:3 which states, “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD…” might have been wondering at this point in the narrative why Ruth was being allowed to follow Naomi.

The narrative continues, in verses 19 to 22, with Naomi and Ruth returning to Bethlehem. After being greeted by the women of the city as Naomi, meaning “Pleasantness, beauty, grace”(Ritchie 23), she returns, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me”(Ruth 1:20). Naomi says this because Mara means bitter or bitterness (Ritchie 21). One can see that Naomi is blaming God for her calamity, and at the same time is recognizing Him as in control by using the name Shaddai. With her husband and sons taken away from her, she laments and sees God as the cause.

Ruth 2:1 – 7 will be the next section discussed by the writer. Here we find the first mention of Boaz in the narrative. His name, to the Hebrew reader, might signify some hope coming into the story as it means, “in him is strength or fortitude” (Ritchie 7). Ruth “happens” to glean in his field, and he “happens” to be a close relative of Naomi’s. The reader, at this point, might begin making connections between Ruth’s need for a husband, and Naomi’s need for a redeemer, and Boaz’s relationship to them both. If the reader were a good Israelite, they might have noted the lack of a mention of God’s hand in these circumstances but also might have realized the emphasis by omission.

After discovering who Ruth is, Boaz chooses to bless her and give her grain otherwise not available to her through gleaning. The practice of gleaning was already discussed above, but the writer will say that Boaz, in 2:8 – 17, shows Ruth an extra measure of kindness. He asks her to only glean in his field and informs her that he has already told his servants of her, so they will not bother her. Ruth continues to glean until evening, showing that she is willing to work hard to support herself and her mother-in-law. The Israelite audience would have been impressed by this foreign woman who was working so hard.

2:18 – 23 finds Ruth returning with her grain to the city and to her mother-in-law’s house. Upon seeing the amount Naomi exclaims, “May he who took notice of you be blessed” (v19). Naomi rejoices when Ruth tells her that she had gleaned in Boaz’s field, seeing a solution to her desire to find Ruth a husband in Boaz, because he is a close enough relative to fulfill the duty of kinsman-redeemer. Naomi commends Ruth to continue to work in Boaz’s field. So, Boaz, a near kinsman of Elimelech, provides an answer to Naomi’s dilemma, being willing to care for her and Ruth by showing them every kindness. Israelites listening to the narrative might have, at this point, begun rejoicing with Naomi over this answer, this blessing from God.

The subsequent section, 3:1 – 5, sees Naomi telling Ruth how she plans to get a husband for her. Naomi instructs Ruth on how to remind Boaz of his duty as the kinsman-redeemer, despite the closer relative. Naomi would have to have known about this closer relative, being as she knew who Boaz was, apparently from before the journey to Moab. Yet she still decides to pursue Boaz for Ruth, rather than following the Law and first consulting with the closer relative. The Jewish audience might have scorned here, because she was not following Torah, but some might have been more sympathetic to Naomi’s cause. Ruth, being an obedient daughter-in-law, tells Naomi, “All that you say I will do” (3:5).

The following night Ruth went to the threshing floor, waited for Boaz to lie down, and went to him to uncover his feet. The possible implications of this word would have recaptured the attentions of any listener due to their ambiguous meaning. Ruth does exactly as she is instructed and so those listening might not have found any fault with her specifically, because she was an alien and more than likely did not know the law as Naomi should have. However, Boaz correctly follows the law, in spite of Ruth’s advances. He does see it as an act of hesed, discussed above, that Ruth would come to him first. Being an upright man, he promises her that he will settle the matter in the morning and makes sure that it is not spread around that she visited him during the night. As a parting gift, he gives her some more of the grain, which he was lying beside. This part of the narrative is found in Ruth 3:6 – 18.

The next morning, as found in Ruth 4:1 – 12, Boaz goes to the city gate to speak with the closer relative. He gathers the elders of the city together, and in front of them informs the closer relative of Naomi’s need for a redeemer. The man is willing to buy the land, and so increase his own holdings when she dies, but is reluctant to marry Ruth for fear of what might become of his own inheritance. So, Boaz, in front of the elders of the city, according to the law, claims Naomi’s land as his own, and Ruth as his wife. The hearers of the narrative might have thought of how clever Boaz was in how he handled the transaction. All the people of the court then acknowledge Ruth as his bride and pronounce blessings on them, one referring to general Israelite history and the other the tribal history of Judah.

The second to last section, 4:13 – 17, detail the consummation of the wedding and the conception of a son. Ruth gives birth to him, and the people name him Obed, which means “serving” (Ritchie 24). This name is very fitting because his birth saw Naomi “whole” again. “Then the women said to Naomi, ‘Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today … May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age;” (Ruth 4:14 – 15). This son also fulfills Jacob’s blessing on Judah found in Genesis 49:10 -12. Although he is not the oldest son, Jacob says that, “The scepter shall not depart from [him]” (49:10).

The last section (Ruth 4:18 – 22) is the genealogy from Perez to David. This narrative was obviously for a people who would have known who David was, and therefore would have been impressed with the inclusion of a Moabite in his lineage. However, it also ties David to Judah in fulfillment of Jacob’s blessing on that line. So, Boaz, by correctly following the law, is rewarded by being able to marry Ruth and is worthy of honor as David’s ancestor.

The occasion for writing of this narrative is also an important thing to consider. The original recipients were Israelites most likely sometime after the reign of King David. This writer agrees with those who date the book post-exilic. These Israelites had just experienced a strained period of their history, out of their land, but were now back in the Promised Land. The purpose of this narrative during that time period would have been to encourage the Israelites to follow Torah. They might have been able to identify with Naomi who had been out of the land, but was able to return. However, the purpose was probably that they imitate Boaz, because he was the upright hero of the story. Through the narrative the Israelites could see that following Torah brings blessing, even to an alien, a Moabite. This would then inspire them to keep the Law of the Lord. The essential aspect would be the examples, both positive and negative that were supplied through the narrative.

Correlation

The messages and major themes of Ruth can be found many places throughout the Scriptures. For example, the theme of cursing for not trusting the LORD, probably experienced by Elimelech and his sons, is also true of all the Israelite people as warned by Moses in Deuteronomy 28. Another example would be that of the redeemer. Boaz redeems Naomi’s land in a similar way as Yahweh buying the people out of slavery in Egypt. Although not precisely identical, there are a few parallels. Naomi was destitute as Israel was in Egypt. The analogy falls apart when one considers the closer relative, but Yahweh was and is still the redeemer of His people to this day.

Another correlation might be found between Elimelech and Abram. Both left the land because of famine, the difference being Abram had not yet been given the land while Elimelech was a child of Israel who had been given the land to occupy. So this is probably not a good correlation to draw. The LORD is a major character in this narrative, although He does not have a speaking part. Much is attributed to Him, asked of Him, blamed on Him and blessed by Him. He is responsible for the relief from the famine. He is called upon by Ruth to punish herself if she should leave Naomi except by death. He is blamed by Naomi for the calamity that befalls her. He is seen as in control of every thing, as reflected in the New Testament, “for in Him we live and move and exist … ‘For we are also His children’” (Acts 17:28). Christians more personally feel the control of God, but the Old Testament saints seem to have been aware of at least a portion of the power that God has.

Application

Application of Biblical text is an important step to take in one’s study of the Bible. However there are several things one must understand in order to properly apply a passage to one’s life. One must first read the text as those to whom it was originally written would read it. This is called understanding the text in “their town.” The next step is to then discover the theological principle that is being taught in the passage. This principle must make sense and application to the original audience before one can make any application to oneself. Finding this principle is known as “crossing the principlizing bridge.” The following action to take is that of understanding the text in “our town,” that is making the same principle apply into the present situation. This step is critical because most interpreters do not ensure that the principle would fit in both times. For proper application, the situations described must be similar.

Ruth could potentially be applied in several ways, but using the method described above, one can hopefully not misapply this wonderful narrative. This writer fears making an application from a narrative due to the style of teaching by example rather than didactic teaching, however he will attempt it. Boaz, after being approached by Ruth to marry him and fulfill the duty of kinsman-redeemer is sure to follow Torah. While people of the present are not likely to be approached to fulfill that duty, one can still follow God’s commands. Boaz is shown as an upright man because he does not allow what he wants to get in the way of how God has commanded things be done. In a similar way, the Christian of today needs to carefully assess his situation and think before he acts. While the Christian is no longer under Torah, there are still commands that God has given that should be followed. When a situation presents itself, that is desirable, but questionable in execution, the Christian should follow the Word of God rather than the desires of his heart. Boaz also made sure that his dealings were publicly known, and while this is not always practical, often it is good to get assurance from older Christians that what one is doing is in line with the revealed will of God. Christians, under grace, should follow His revealed Word.

Works Cited

Baab, O. J. “Levirate Law”. In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 3. New York: Abingdon 1962 116

Baab, O. J. “Marriage”. In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 3. New York: Abingdon 1962 278 – 286

Baer, D. A. and R. P. Gordon “hsd” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis Ed. William A. Van Gemeren vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 211 - 218

Buttrick, George A., ed. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon 1962

Cohen, S. “Ephrathah.” In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 2. New York: Abingdon 1962 122

Grohman, E. D. “Moab”. In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 3. New York: Abingdon 1962 414-415

Hamilton, Victor P. “Shaddai” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody, 1980. 907.

Harris, R. Laird “ga’al” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody, 1980. 144 – 145.

Harris, R. Laird “hsd” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Chicago: Moody, 1980. 305 – 307.

Hubbard, Robert L. Jr. “g’l” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis Ed. Willem A. Van Gemeren vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 787-794

McCown, C.C. “Gate” In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 2. New York: Abingdon 1962 355

Richardson, H.N. “Harvest”. In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 2. New York: Abingdon 1962 527

Richardson, H.N. “Threshing”. In Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick ed. vol. 4. New York: Abingdon 1962 636

Ritchie, John Scripture Proper Names and Their Interpretations with the Chief Typical Persons, Places and Things in the Old and New Testaments Kilmarnock, Scotland: John Ritchie

Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews and, Mark W. Chavalas eds. IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity 2000

Brendan Technically

Thursday, August 27, 2015

When You Dread the Nights

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Ruth Study

Blog Archive