|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman Ruth 4 Next Section - Typology of Ruth
Boaz
Marries Ruth (ch. 4:1 - 12)
As we see in verse 1,
while Ruth was waiting at home with Naomi, Boaz went to the city gates
of Bethlehem. The city gates were
important in towns back then. You
could compare the city gates to our city halls and court houses in 21st
century western society. That
is where all the city business took place.
That is where court procedures took place.
That is where the elders of the city sat during the day to here
and to take care of the business of the day.
By this time there were normally 10 elders for each town or city.
The idea of 10 elders evolved into the rule that before an
Israeli could have an official meeting of the saints, that is, a
religious type meeting, there had to be at least 10 men in the meeting. Also in verse 1 we see
that Boaz waited patiently for the closer relative, the closer kinsman
redeemer to walk by. When he
did, Boaz pulled him aside, along with the elders to discuss the matter
at hand, as seen in verse 2. Some
suggest that Boaz himself might have been an elder.
We know that from Ruth 2:1 that he was a man of stature in the
community. We can't say for
sure since the text doesn't specifically say that he was an elder.
We have some problems
in verse 3. The NIV says
that Naomi owns some land and that she is now selling the land.
This might well be a matter of translating the Hebrew text based
on one's interpretation of the text, and not a pure translation.
Due to Hebrew verb tenses, either Naomi owned the land and was
selling it, or else, the land was already sold in the past, most likely
by her husband. I tend to
believe the latter, because it makes more sense. I
think it is clear that Naomi and Ruth were poor.
In chapter 1 Naomi said that she returned to At this point I will
comment on Hebrew verb tenses because it does play an important part in
chapter 4. There are only
two tenses, completed, and in the process of being completed.
In English we have three tenses, past present, and future.
Not so in Hebrew, thus the problem we see here.
In chapter 4, concerning the land relating to Naomi that was to
be bought by the kinsman redeemer, both verb tenses are used in the
first few verses.
Therefore, translators have to decide which verb tense to use to
be consistent. You
can't have one verse saying that the land was already sold and
needs to be redeemed back to Naomi, and another verse saying the land
hadn't already been sold and Naomi is selling the land.
Either Naomi owned the land or she didn't.
The Hebrew text is confusing on this point.
The only way to translate then is to interpret from what you
understand the context to be. I
believe Naomi was poor and had no land and therefore the kinsman
redeemer had to buy it back for her.
I don't believe that she owned the land and was now selling it as
the NIV states. Before we go further,
we need to realize that no one in Israel
really owned land. Only God
owned the land. Israelis
owned the right to use the land. They
bought the right to use it. This
makes the year of Jubilee more understandable.
Every 50 years the use of the land would return, or should have
been return, to the one who originally had the right to use it. The
problem is that for most of the time, if not all of the time, Israel
never really walked with their Lord long enough to experience the Year
of Jubilee. As I've already
brought forth, in verse 3, the NIV says that Naomi owned some land.
In verse 4, the NIV says that Boaz suggested that the closer
kinsman redeemer buy the land from her.
Again, this is a translation problem. I don't believe Naomi owned
the land for the reasons I've already stated.
Note also in verse 4
the words "our brother", that Boaz spoke to the closer kinsman
redeemer. Some suggest that
because of the use of the word "brother", Boaz and the closer
kinsman were brothers of Elimelech.
On the other hand, many people simply believe the use of the word
"brother" means brother, as in, "Israeli brother",
or, "brother in We should also note at
this point that Ruth is not the centre of the story, not the centre of
what is happening. The land
and Naomi is the important one here.
The Jew and the rightful ownership of the use of the land is the
important issue, not the Gentile widowed Ruth. Verse 4 simply states
that Boaz suggested the next in kin that could be the kinsman redeemer
could buy the land. The next
in kin agreed. Things
suddenly change in verse 5 when Boaz tells the next of kin that if he
redeems the land, on the day of the sale, he must marry the dead man's
wife. That' s Ruth.
At that the next in kin changes his mind. In verse 6 the next of
kin tells Boaz that he cannot marry Ruth or buy the land because it
would endanger his own estate. That
makes sense. If he marries
Ruth, according to the Law of Moses and the tradition of Some suggest that the
reason why the next closes kinsman couldn't marry Ruth is because he was
already married. This might
be, but the text doesn't say that. If
he were married, you'd wonder why Boaz would not have already known
that, and why he would have asked the man to marry Ruth. Verse 7 is in
brackets. It's like an after
thought. When it says, "in earlier times", the "earlier
times" were the days of Ruth and Boaz.
The word "earlier' is in relation to the fact that the book
of Ruth was probably written around the time of King, David, or Solomon,
as was the book of Judges. Or,
it might well have been edited even later than that.
No one seems really sure. Whoever and whenever
the book of Ruth was written, the author stated that "in earlier
times" when a property deal was made, one party took off his shoe
or sandal and gave it to another to finalize the deal.
In verse 8 the nearest kinsman redeemer took off his sandal and
gave it to Boaz, even though he did not buy the land.
What is probably happening here is that in order for Boaz to buy
the property, the unnamed next of kin had to decline it.
In actuality, or, in one sense of the word, his decline was part
of the transaction. He had
to decline in order for the sale to go through. There is another
thought that some insert here as well, but I'm not sure is really
warranted. When it came to a
brother-in-law declining to marry his dead brother's wife as seen in the
Levirate Marriage laws, that was seen as a shameful act.
He would remove one sandal and the widow would spit in his face
and throw the sandal away. This
would represent the fact that the refusal to marry was seen as a
disgraceful thing in Israel. The man would forever be
known as a man without a sandal. He'd
be forever disgraced. What the nearest next of kin did here might have
stemmed from this. In verses 9 and 10 we
see Boaz making the announcement in front of the city elders and in
front of all who where there. He
would buy the land from Naomi, as the NIV states.
I mentioned this earlier, but because
of the Hebrew verse tense here and in verse 3, I believe that Naomi did
not own the land. Someone
else owned the land that was either sold or lost by Elimelech, Naomi's
dead husband. We see Killon and
Mahlon mentioned here. These
are the two dead sons of Naomi. Mahlon was Ruth's deceased husband.
Boaz announced that he
would redeem the land and marry Ruth at the same time.
The reason for both the land purchase and the marriage was so
that Mahlon, and really most of all, Elimelech's,
lineage and the land would stay in tact. Israeli tradition was
that the land should stay in the family, if not the family, at least the
clan. The elders of "May you be
famous in Ephratah and This section ends in
verse 12. "May your
family be like that of Perez, who Tammar bore to Judah", said the elders. In
Matthew's account of the genealogy of Jesus, in Matthew 1:3, we see that
Judah, Tammar, and Perez, are all mentioned in the lineage of Jesus.
For this reason this statement would be a blessing. Beyond this,
Ruth and Tammar had a similar experience.
Both their husbands had died.
You see the story of Tammar in Genesis 38.
She tricked Judah, her father-in-law into an affair and thus
having a child. This is
where the similarity between Ruth and Tammar ends. The
Genealogy Of David (ch. 4:13 - 22) Verse 13 states that
"the Lord enabled Ruth to conceive".
This was how Hebrews thought.
If they conceived, the Lord caused the pregnancy.
If the woman couldn't conceive, that too was from the Lord.
Conception, in the minds of Hebrews was a miracle of God and He
was involved in the conception just as much as the man and wife.
Maybe we should have the same thinking today.
Maybe the Lord is more involved in conception than what we might
think. Maybe we think too
much in terms of just an egg cell uniting with a sperm cell.
The Hebrews might be more right than what we give them credit
for. The way the Hebrews
thought on this issue tells me that human life begins at conception, not
after conception. Verse 14 is important,
and really, it might well reflect what this whole book is all about.
The women of Bethlehem says to Naomi, "praise be to the Lord, who this day has
not left you without a kinsman redeemer".
Note thate even though Boaz married Ruth, the women of the town says
that Noami was the reciepient of the kinsman redeemer. If you look closely at the book of Ruth, Ruth in one sense of the
word is not the central character. It's really Naomi.
It was for Naomi the Jew's sake, that Boaz the Jew, married Ruth the
Gentile, in order that Naomi might benefit from the kinsman redeemer.
It was her deceased husband's land that was redeemed, not Ruth's
deceased husband, although it would have been his if he had lived. Ruth goes on with her
blessing, saying, "may he become famous …". I believe
the pronoun "he" refers to Ruth's new bor son, who did become
famous because he is in the lineage of Jesus. See Matthew 1:4 to
6. In verse 15 the women
continue their blessing. They
state that Naomi will now be looked after in her old age.
"… for your daughter-in-law who loves you and who is
better to you than seven sons, has given him birth". What they are saying here is that Naomi will be well looked after and so will
her descendents because Ruth, a Gentile, loves her so much, she bore a
son for both Boaz and for Naomi, and especially for Naomi. This
son, Ruth's first born, will actually be considered as the son of Naomi and her
deceased husband, due to the rules of a Levirate Marriage, even though,
this in the true sense of the word is not a levirate Marriage. Because
Ruth did not marry her deceased husband's brother.
In verse 16 we see that
Naomi "took the child, laid him in her lap and cared for him".
The JKV uses the word "nurse" instead of the words
"cared for", as seen in the NIV.
The word "nurse" might give the wrong impression here.
Clearly, Naomi was not breast feeding Ruth's baby son.
The Hebrew word translated as "nurse" in the KJV and
"cared for' in the NIV simply means to "hold in one's arms, to
support, to carry". There
is no suggestion here of breast feeding. There
is a strong suggestion of Naomi being actively involved in the support
and care for the baby boy.; Verse 17 states that the
women of the town said that "Naomi has a son".
We see the kinsman redeemer at work here.
Biologically, the son was Ruth's, but as I've already stated, he
was considered Elimelech and Naomi's son in order to carry on the family
line. Note in verse 17 who
actually named the baby boy. The
pronoun "they" is used here.
"They" named the son.
Who is "they"? They
refers to the women in the town and Naomi, and, possibly Ruth.
We definitely see the community mentality here.
In the genealogy here
there are people left out. Only
those who I suppose are important are mentioned.
This is often the case in Hebrew genealogies. The fact that a
Gentile saves the lineage is important when we think of the typological
significance here. Israel
in one sense of the word will be saved, as the apostle Paul says in
Romans 11, because the Gentiles were brought into the family of God.
How wonderful.
Previous Section - Typology of Ruth
|