The Book of Ruth Parts 9 and 10

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PARTS 9 and 10

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 9, NAOMI AND MARA

By Dr. Stephen Jones

Orpah returned not only to her own people but to “her gods” (Ruth 1:15), much as the Israelites had often wanted to return to the gods of Egypt. It is easier to take people out of Egypt than to take Egypt out of the people. So also today, it is easier to get people to recite the formula for salvation and to join the church than to truly walk with God and receive His promises.

Ruth, however, refused to leave Naomi, even after being given every opportunity to return, for she believed in the God of Israel and was strong in faith. So we read in Ruth 1:18,

¹⁸ When she [Naomi] saw that she [Ruth] was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.

In other words, Naomi accepted the fact that Ruth truly wanted to go with her to Bethlehem and adopt this new life in God. No doubt she had seen Naomi’s faith and way of life and understood it to be far superior to the way of life of idolatrous Moabites.

The Moabite Way of Life

We should also note an underlying motive that does not appear on the surface. The Moabites were among those who offered their first-born sons to Chemosh as a burnt offering. Their worship was similar to that of the Ammonites, who worshiped Molech.  John D. Davis tells us in his notation on Chemosh:

“Chemosh. The god of the Moabites (Num. xxi. 2; Jer. xlviii. 46; Moabites Stone 3), worshiped in the same manner as was Molech, by the sacrifice of children as burnt offerings (2 Kin. iii. 27). (A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 128)

The reference above to the Moabite Stone is taken from the third paragraph of this stone pillar, inscribed by “Mesha, son of Chemoshmelech, king of Moab.” It reads:

“And I have made this high place for Chemosh in Krhh on account of the deliverance of Mesha.”

Surely this horrible practice was something that every mother dreaded as an inevitable part of their culture. Ruth must have known that in Israel such sacrifice was not practiced except, perhaps, in times of apostasy. Because Ruth was childless and yet desired to be remarried and to have children, she must have known that by going with Naomi, she might yet have a son that would not be sacrificed upon the altar of Chemosh.

The Book of Ruth was written with the laws of Sonship in mind, and so the religious practice of the Moabites provides us with a contrasting backdrop to the account of Ruth’s son, Obed, who was the grandfather of David and the ancestor of Christ. Christ, the Son of God, was the only true and perfect sacrifice for sin. No other baby born after the flesh could qualify as an unspotted lamb. Furthermore, Christ’s death on the cross was to satisfy the demands of the “fiery law” (Deuteronomy 33:2 KJV), not by a literal fire, but by crucifixion.

All judgments of the law were represented by this metaphorical “fire,” including (as Jesus said) lashes from a whip (Luke 12:48, 49). Perhaps it is significant that the law that limits such judgment to forty lashes in Deuteronomy 25:1-3 is immediately followed by the law of Sonship in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, separated only by the law that forbids muzzling “the ox while he is threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4). This is a labor law that ensures that the one doing the work is the first partaker of its fruits (2 Timothy 2:6 KJV).

In this particular context, it indicates that when Christ received forty lashes just prior to His crucifixion, we received the benefit of healing (Isaiah 53:5). Yet Christ Himself, being the “ox” in this case, was the first partaker of that fruit, being healed of the ultimate disease of death at His resurrection. He then led “many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10) according to the law of Sonship in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

By linking these three laws in this way, Moses prophesied the order of events in the process of salvation. Yet in the story of Ruth these truths are only implied as part of the backdrop of the story. In her time, the worship of Chemosh was more well known than today, making it necessary now to explain the contrast between Moabite and Israelite worship.

Bethlehem

Ruth 1:19-21 continues,

¹⁹ So they both went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came about when they had come to Bethlehem, that all the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, “Is this Naomi?” ²⁰ And she said to them, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.” ²¹ I went out full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has witnessed against me and the Almighty has afflicted me?”

Recall that Bethlehem means “house of bread,” and that Naomi was returning to her hometown after a famine had driven her to Moab for a decade. Her experience in Moab had been sad, having lost her husband and two sons. Her family inheritance had been sold to others when they moved to Moab, and because she probably returned to Bethlehem with very little money, there was little she could do but wait for the year of Jubilee, when her property could return to her.

From Naomi to Mara

And so Naomi told her friends and relatives in Bethlehem that they should call her Mara, “bitter,” rather than Naomi, “grace, favor.” From all appearances, God had treated Naomi not with favor but with bitterness. Of course, we immediately recognize that this was prophetic of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who came to Bethlehem many years later, where she gave birth to the Son of God.

Mary’s Hebrew name was Miriam, a derivative of Mara. We are told little about Mary’s actual circumstance in being impregnated by the Holy Spirit, but we know that it disturbed Joseph greatly until he received revelation that she was yet a virgin (Matthew 1:20). She then hastily retreated to the hill country of Judah to stay with her cousin Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John (Luke 1:39).

Much is left unsaid, but her joy in bringing forth the Christ would always be overshadowed by the pain and bitterness caused by those who did not believe that she was really impregnated by the Holy Spirit. After all, the angel’s announcement was private, not public, and so it would always appear that she was just trying to defend herself by making up an implausible story.

Joseph himself was very disturbed. Matthew 1:20 says in the NASB, “But when he had considered this…” The word translated “considered” is enthymeomai, whose root is thymos, usually translated “wrath.” The word indicates that Joseph was very angry until the angel appeared to him in a dream and explained the truth of what had happened.

The entire experience put Mary herself in danger, for by law Joseph might have had the right to have her stoned. Being the victim in this case, Joseph had the right to prosecute her to the fullest extent or to forgive her. Such is the Law of Victims Rights. Joseph had decided to divorce her quietly, but the angelic appearance changed his mind in this regard. Instead, Mary went to her cousin’s house for a season and later accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem.

Nazareth was an outpost of zealous Jews, and if Joseph had left Mary there by herself, they might have mobbed the house and stoned her to death. Hence, God used “bitter” circumstances to bring Mary to Bethlehem, where she gave birth to Jesus.

Naomi was brought to Bethlehem in bitterness as well.

Mara is the feminine form of mar, which has a range of meaning and application. The word comes from the root word marar, which literally means “a drop; flowing down.” When applied to one’s feelings or emotions, it refers to bitterness or metaphorically to sadness for having been brought low. Such was the case with Naomi, who appeared to have lost everything, and we may assume that Mary, the mother of Jesus, felt much the same in her day.

Yet it was Ruth who later gave birth to the type of Christ—her son, Obed. Would not Ruth be a type of Mary? Why then does Naomi call herself Mara? As we will see later in our study, the law of Sonship meant that Ruth’s biological son, Obed, was legally the son (heir) of Naomi, for we read in Ruth 4:17,

¹⁷ And the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi!”

So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Hence, both Ruth and Naomi were Mara, for the child belonged to both of them in different ways, according to the law. The neighbors named him Obed, “serving,” because his name refers to one who serves another. In this case Ruth had brought forth a son for Naomi and in that sense served Naomi, so that she, her husband, and dead sons would not lose their inheritance.

Returning at the Wave-sheaf offering

Ruth 1:22 says,

²² So Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned form the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning [techillah, “beginning, opening, first”] of barley harvest.

By law the beginning of barley harvest was the day that the first-fruits of barley were waved before the Lord on the first Sunday after Passover. This signaled the opening of barley harvest, according to the law in Leviticus 23:10, 11, 14,

¹⁰ Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, “When you enter the land which I am going to give to you and reap its harvest, then you will bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. ¹¹ And he will wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the Sabbath the priest will wave it ... ¹⁴ Until this same day, until you have brought in the offering of your God, you will eat neither bread nor roasted grain nor new growth. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.”

In other words, the people were not to eat any of the new growth of barley until the first-fruits had been offered to God. Hence, the wave-sheaf offering was called “the beginning of barley harvest.”

We know, then, the time of year that Naomi and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem. It was the same day that Christ was later to ascend (John 20:17) and be presented to the Father as the first-fruits from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20). Though Jesus was raised “while it was still dark” (John 20:1), He could not ascend until the priest waved the sheaf of barley at the third hour of the day. Only then was His resurrection established by the proper legal procedure.

Though Naomi had suffered the loss of all things, her return on the day of the wave-sheaf offering signified her return to life, her resurrection, so to speak. She had “died” in bitterness (Mara), but she was raised to life in grace and favor (Naomi).

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 10, BOAZ

Naomi and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem on the day of the wave-sheaf offering of barley. Most of the men of the town, no doubt, had gone to Shiloh for the feast of Passover and would return later in the day or by the next day to begin harvesting their fields of barley.

The setting of the story shows the connection between Bethlehem, the place of the Messiah’s birth (Micah 5:2), and His ultimate resurrection and presentation to the Father in heaven as the first-born from the dead (Colossians 1:15). To Naomi, arriving in Bethlehem completed their trip to the Promised Land and represented the place and time of entering God’s Rest.

Earlier, the Israelites had been led across the Jordan into the plains of Jericho on the tenth day of the first month—the day that the Passover lambs were to be selected (Joshua 4:19; Exodus 12:3). The men were then circumcised (Joshua 5:3-8) and recovered during the three days leading to the Passover. They killed the lambs on the afternoon of the 14^th day of the month (Joshua 5:10).

Passover itself, being the 15^th day of the month, was a day of rest, and the people then ate “parched grain” (i.e., barley) the following day, which was the wave-sheaf offering (Leviticus 23:14). This shows a three-day cycle that was repeated in the year that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead on the third day. Since the wave-sheaf offering was waved on the day after the weekly Sabbath (Leviticus 23:11), it always fell on the day that was later called Sunday. Hence, the lambs were killed on Friday and the parched grain of barley was eaten on Sunday.

Joshua 5:10-12 tells us,

¹⁰ While the sons of Israel camped at Gilgal, they observed the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month on the desert plains of Jericho. ¹¹ And on the day after the Passover [15^th day], on that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. ¹² And the manna ceased on the day after they had eaten some of the produce of the land [16^th day], so that the sons of Israel no longer had manna, but they ate some of the yield of the land of Canaan during that year.

In the prophetic story, Naomi here represents Joshua who led the Israelites (i.e., Ruth) into the Promised Land and to Bethlehem, the place of Naomi’s family inheritance (farm). There is a clear progression of events that parallel Israel’s entry into Canaan as well. After leaving Egypt, the Kingdom was established at Sinai; after 40 years the people entered the Kingdom; and seven years later the people inherited the Kingdom when the land was divided among the tribes and families.

So also Naomi’s “kingdom” (family) was established in the wilderness.  Then Ruth (now an Israelite) entered the Kingdom at Passover—perhaps crossing the Jordan on the 14^th day of the first month. They arrived at their inheritance on the day of the wave-sheaf offering.

It is likely that the day of decision, when Orpah returned and Ruth decided to go with Naomi, occurred on the Moabite side of the Jordan River. Ruth then became an Israelite when she stated by faith, “Your people will be my people, and your God, my God” (Ruth 1:16). I stress this because some would teach that to become a Jew one must marry a circumcised Jew in order to have a genealogical connection to Judah and Abraham. Paul, however, makes it a matter of heart circumcision in Romans 2:28, 29.

Ruth the Israelite of Judah

Israel was originally one man (Jacob), who became an Israelite when he was about 98 years of age. He was not born an Israelite but attained that name or status after becoming an overcomer. His family were called Israelites, including their wives who were taken from other nations. After some centuries had passed, especially after a multitude of Egyptians joined them in coming out of Egypt (Exodus 12:48, 49; 12:38) Israel was a nation, not a race per se.

Isaiah 56:6, 7, 8 interprets this by prophetic decree, making provision for foreigners to become Israelites as well—not by genealogy but by nationality. To restrict the definition of an Israelite to the family of Jacob-Israel is to view the term too narrowly.

Essentially, Ruth became an Israelite—more specifically a Jew (tribe of Judah)—by heart circumcision at the time that the Israelites under Joshua had been physically circumcised. This occurred before her marriage to Boaz, and God gave her “praise” for her faith by memorializing her in the Book of Ruth. Judah means “praise,” and Paul uses this in Romans 2:29 to show that being a member of the tribe of Judah was a matter of God’s recognition, rather than depending on the recognition of men. He tells us that “his praise is not from men, but from God.”

In other words, one’s status or position as a Jew (“praise”) is based on faith and heart circumcision, not works or physical circumcision. Men’s definition of a Jew is not the same as God’s definition. Many claim to be Jews who are not really Jews at all by God’s definition, because they yet adhere to the Old Covenant and its sign of physical circumcision. But such are not recognized by God as “Jews,” nor do they receive “praise” from God.

These are the ones John mentions in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, when speaks of “those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” Satan means adversary. In this case, by rejecting the Messiah, they became God’s adversaries and ought to repent of their hostility to God, as demanded by the Law of Tribulation (Leviticus 26:40, 41, 42). Only by repenting of their hostility to God and by placing their faith in Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, can they become Jews in the sight of God.

A major theme of the story of Ruth is about how to become a Jew. When viewed in light of the New Covenant, where “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), God’s intent to include everyone in His Kingdom and give them equality is made clear. So Ruth, the Moabite (Ruth 1:4) was able to become an Israelite, and God was not ashamed to include her in the genealogy of Christ. Neither was Boaz reluctant to show her kindness, though she was “a foreigner” (Ruth 2:10). Neither was he ashamed to take her as his wife (Ruth 4:13).

Boaz the Kinsman Redeemer

Ruth 2:1 says,

¹ Now Naomi had a kinsman [mowda] of her husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz.

Boaz was Naomi’s “kinsman.” The Hebrew word is mowda, derived from the root word yada, “to know.” A kinsman, in Hebrew thought, is one who is known to you, as in a family member. The root word yada is spelled with three letters, yod (hand), daleth (door), and ayin (eye). It is also the root word from which Judah is derived.

We can view yada as seeing a hand opening a door, or as seeing hands raised in praise (“Judah”), which opens a door to heaven.

There is also the specific authority and responsibility of a kinsman redeemer, often translated “avenger of blood” (Deuteronomy 19:12). Such translations come from an Old Covenant mindset, however, causing men to justify revenge. In fact, the blood avenger was the one responsible to seek justice for family members in order to restore the lawful order when some injustice had been committed.

The blood avenger was not allowed to take justice into his own hands but was to be the family advocate in a biblical court of law to give justice to those whose rights had been violated and to restore peace between the victim and the sinner. The word translated “avenger” is ga’al, “redeemer,” and it is so translated in Ruth 4:14 in reference to Boaz.

Hence, this is more literally rendered “bloodline redeemer,” or, better yet, “kinsman redeemer,” a term most Christians understand and apply to Jesus Christ.

So we see that Ruth 2:1 calls Boaz a “kinsman,” and Ruth 4:14 calls him a “redeemer.” He was both—hence, a kinsman redeemer. As such, he fulfilled a prophetic role of Christ Himself, but in the story of Ruth, Boaz redeemed the inheritance of Naomi through the principle of the law of Sonship in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

The Meaning of Boaz

Scholars are uncertain as to the precise origin of the name Boaz, telling us that the name is derived from an unused root of uncertain meaning. The name means “fleetness, quickness, the strength of a sharp mind.” As such, it fits well with yada, “kinsman,” which has to do with knowing or having knowledge. Perhaps the picture being painted here is a man of intelligence and knowledge of the law, and (by implication) one who was careful to act lawfully at all times.

Boaz’ prophetic position as a kinsman redeemer is more significant when we link it to the pillar on the left side of the entrance of Solomon’s temple. The two pillars were Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21). Jachin (Yachiyn) means “He will establish.” The root word kuwn, sets forth the idea of stability and firmness. In Genesis 46:10, Jachin was one of the sons of Simeon (“hearing”), which suggests that hearing God’s voice provides a double witness which establishes all things.

Putting these together, we see that to enter the temple of God (as a priest), one must be part of the body of Christ, having the authority and doing the work of the kinsman redeemer. One must hear God’s voice and establish the will of God in the earth through the proper application of justice and mercy.

By implication, Boaz was such a man. He thus represents what it means to be an overcomer, as we read in Revelation 3:12, “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God.” This is a reference to the two pillars at the entrance of the temple, as I have said. This is the culmination of the message to the Church in Philadelphia, the “City of Brotherly Love.” The key to making this connection is found in Revelation 3:7,

⁷ And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write: “He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no man will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:”

This interprets the meaning of Jachin and Boaz, the pillars of the temple, in terms of one holding “the key of David.” The pillars in the New Temple being built are overcomers who guard the entrance and have the authority to determine who is allowed to enter and who is forbidden. They hold the key of David, which is Love.

This is also a reference to Isaiah 22:22, where we read that Eliakim replaced Shebna as the Chief of Staff of David’s house and the treasurer of Solomon’s temple:

²² Then I will set the key [maftaakh] of the house of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open.

The implication is that Shebna was not an overcomer, so he was not qualified to hold the key of David. Christ Himself holds the key in the ultimate sense, but the overcomers who are part of His body, are also given responsible positions under His authority. Revelation 3:8 goes on,

⁸ I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

Such worthy “pillars” in the temple are those who keep his word and do not deny His name. Apparently, Shebna did not keep His word and thus denied God’s name. We know little about that story, but both Shebna and Eliakim were officials in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18). As I wrote in The Revelation, Book 2, it appears most likely that Shebna had falsely accused Eliakim of some misdeeds, thereby succeeding in overthrowing Eliakim for a season. When the truth came out later, Shebna was exiled and Eliakim was summoned and restored to his position (Isaiah 22:20, 21).

John then links this story in Revelation 3:9 to “those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie.” The implication is that these false Jews are like Shebna, who was deposed after attempting to usurp the authority of Christ and the overcomers. The key of David is Love, and that key is then given to the overcomers who manifest the nature of God.

Boaz himself represents both Christ and the overcomers in general in the story of Ruth. He represents one who knows and therefore keeps the word (law) of God according to His intent. As we will see as the story unfolds, Boaz was motivated by love for Ruth. He also implemented the law of Sonship, whereby he was willing to raise up seed on behalf of his near kinsman, Elimelech, who had lost his sons in Moab.

As we will see later, the purpose of the law, given in Deuteronomy 25:6, was to prevent the loss of a brother’s inheritance. It says, “that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.” Those who refuse to do this on behalf of Jesus Christ, our elder Brother who died childless, are those who deny His name (Revelation 3:8).