The Book of Ruth, Parts 1 and 2 by S. Jones

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PARTS 1 & 2

By Dr. Stephen Jones

Blog Date 5-12-2019

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 1, INTRODUCTION

In Jewish liturgy, the Book of Ruth is read at Pentecost. As such, its main theme is marriage and sonship, for Ruth plays the role of the Bride of Christ bringing forth the sons of God as an illustration of the law of sonship found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 NET If brothers live together and one of them dies without having a son, the dead man's wife must not remarry someone outside the family. Instead, her late husband's brother must go to her, marry her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law. (6) Then the first son she bears will continue the name of the dead brother, thus preventing his name from being blotted out of Israel.

The first Pentecost was held at Mount Horeb, where Moses officiated over the marriage between God and Israel. Israel, however, was too fearful to approach God (Exodus 20:19), so the marriage was never consummated. It was only after the first work of Christ was completed that Pentecost was actually fulfilled and the marriage consummated in the second chapter of Acts. Christ was the Husband, who had died childless, as it were, and we were then called by law to raise up seed unto our elder brother, as the law demands.

The church, then, plays more than one role in this prophetic context. As the younger brother, the church was to preach the word (gospel), which is the immortal and incorruptible “seed” having the power to generate the sons of God (1 Peter 1:23-25). But as the Bride, the church had received that seed, generating “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27).

Playing more than one role is not unusual, for we find that as individuals, we too play the same dual role. We wear more than one hat, as they say. In Paul’s male role, he was a father who was begetting children through the preaching of the gospel (1 Corinthians 4;15 KJV). Yet because every true believer has been begotten by God, Paul was also part of the Bride company. Furthermore, insofar as his new identity was concerned, he was also a son of God (John 1:12, 13).

These multiple roles are often a cause of much confusion among believers who try too hard to separate people into distinct groups. Even more confusion is added when we understand that there are two brides, Hagar and Sarah, which represent the two covenants (Galatians 4:22-24). The covenants are marriage covenants, each producing “seed,” whose quality determines the nature of the “sons” that are begotten of each. It is plain that God’s Old Covenant marriage with Israel (Hagar) in the time of Moses was a marriage based on fear, rather than love. It was therefore incapable of bringing forth the sons of God.

For this reason, a new covenant was required, no longer through Moses, but through the Prophet who was like Moses in this way (Deuteronomy 18:18; Acts 7:37). While Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant marriage, Jesus was the Mediator of the New Covenant marriage (Galatians 3:19, 20). In this, Jesus again played a dual role both as Minister and Husband of the Bride.

In the New Covenant Pentecost (Acts 2), 120 disciples drew near to God in the upper room, overcoming the problem of fear that had plagued the Israelites under Moses. These had learned to love Jesus, not to fear Him, and their love was rewarded. The coming of the Holy Spirit was evidence of that marriage and its consummation, for it begat Christ in those disciples, who, like Mary, “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18).

The pattern of Mary being impregnated by the Holy Spirit to bring forth Jesus Christ was fulfilled on a broader scale at Pentecost in Acts 2. And throughout the centuries many have repeated this pattern by receiving the same Spirit though Pentecost. The only problem, of course, is that as the quality of the seed (gospel) increasingly took on the nature of the Old Covenant, the quality of the seed was degraded as well. Children of bondage began to be produced, and hence, the children of God became spiritual Ishmaelites who were enslaved to the traditions of men.

Pentecost was fulfilled perfectly, but the leaven in that feast increased as the baptism of fire decreased over the centuries. But those who allowed the fire of the Holy Spirit to do its work in their lives continued their journey as they followed the pillar of fire and the cloud in their own wilderness. They learned how to be transformed from the Hagar company to the Sarah company as their faith changed from an Old Covenant pattern to the New.

The Book of Ruth gives us the story of a New Covenant marriage—even though it was written during the time when the Old Covenant was dominant. Being read each year at Pentecost, the Jews understood its marriage significance, although they saw it through the veil of the Old Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:14, 15). Hence, they believe that they are children of God by their genealogy or by fleshly criteria in general, whereas John tells us that those of the New Covenant are begotten (genneo) “not of blood(line), nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).

Authorship of Ruth

The Jewish Talmud says that the Book of Ruth was written by Samuel (Baba Bathra, 14b), but this view is no longer held by most Jews or Christians. Unfortunately, there is very little evidence of the actual author. The main evidence of the time of its writing is in the final genealogy of the book in Ruth 4:17, 22, where it gives the genealogy of their son Obed, who was “the father of Jesse, the father of David.”

Whoever wrote those words probably lived in the reign of David prior to the time of Solomon, who likely would have been included if the author had written this during or after Solomon’s reign. Other commentators date the book later, perhaps as late as the year 400 B.C., but if that were the case, the author would have been Ezra or one of his contemporaries, and it would seem odd that the author would be unknown to later rabbis.

It is possible, however, that the main portion of the book was written by Samuel, and that another writer attached the final genealogical statement as an addendum, once it became clear that Obed’s birth proved to be highly significant in Israel’s history. The reign of David, Obed’s grandson, would have given great historical interest to the circumstances of Obed’s birth.

A similar example of such an addendum is seen in Deuteronomy 34, which was written after Moses went up to Mount Nebo, where he died and was buried by God. No doubt this was written by Eleazar, who served as Moses’ scribe and future high priest. But the final four verses, Deuteronomy 34:9-12, appear to have been written much later, probably by Ezra the Scribe, who compiled the canon of the Old Testament after the Babylonian captivity of Judah. He informs us that no one up to his time had arisen who was like Moses, a reference to Moses’ prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18.

Deuteronomy 34:10 says,

¹⁰ Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.

If this verse had been written shortly after Moses had died, they would have been relatively meaningless. It was obviously written some centuries after Moses and Joshua had died. Ezra seems to be the best candidate for this addendum.

This does not cast doubt on the inspiration of these words, nor even on the overall authorship of Deuteronomy, though skeptics have tried to make this claim. In like manner, the genealogy at the end of Ruth might well be another addendum that was meant to connect the story with David himself, in case a reader from afar might not know this.

At any rate, commentators should not be so quick to dismiss the Talmudic belief that the book was authored by Samuel. Surely that rabbi knew that Samuel was long dead by the time of David and would have understood that the last verses were a later addendum.

Structure of the Book of Ruth

The Book of Ruth is structured according to the well-established literary tool of the day known as Parallelism, that is, a Chiasm. Dr. Bullinger gives this Chiasm as follows:

A Elimelech’s Family. The Depression (1:1-18)

B Sympathy with Naomi. In Grief (1:19-22)

C Boaz and Ruth (2:1-23)

C₁ Ruth and Boaz (3:1 - 4:13)

B₁ Sympathy with Naomi. In Joy (4:14-17)

A₁ Elimelech’s Family. The Uplifting (4:18-22)

As usual, the middle portions (C and C¹) are the most important portions in the story. What is perhaps most interesting is that the genealogy at the end forms an integral part of the Chiasm. Without it (A¹), we would have no parallel to A and no final resolution to “The Depression” at the beginning of the story.

This small outline can be interpreted in two different ways. It may mean that the final portion was written by the same author as the rest of the book, or, if the addendum was added later, it would indicate that it was both necessary for the completion of the book and also part of the inspired text, even as we see with the addendum in Deuteronomy.

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 2, THE SETTING

The story of Ruth took place in the time of the Judges, as the first verse tells us, and so it is placed immediately after the Book of Judges. It is one of the most beloved of the Old Testament books, because it is a story of romance and marriage. Many also like the book because it is not heavy with plain teaching (as is Leviticus or Deuteronomy). It is, in fact, a pleasant way of teaching a portion of the law through storytelling.

I followed a similar path by writing novels in which I go back in time to walk with the biblical characters and to instruct them in New Covenant principles that they would have known, had it not been for the Old Covenant veil over their eyes. To read a commentary on the veil requires much more discipline than reading a story illustrating it. In doing this, I used Shakespeare’s principle of “teaching through entertainment.” The main difference is that Shakespeare taught a loose version of secular history, while I revealed biblical history with some imagination (and revelation) to fill in the biblical gaps.

The Theme of Ruth

To be sure, Ruth is most beloved on account of its theme of love and marriage. However, from the standpoint of biblical teaching, it is mostly a revelation of the law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This puts the focus more on sonship than on marriage itself. The marriage itself provides us with the backdrop to sonship, since marriage is a requirement for legitimate sonship.

Further, the backdrop for the main love story is the famine which drove Elimelech and Naomi to the land of Moab, recreating the story of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, which too was brought about by a famine. When Naomi and Ruth returned to the land of Judah, their journey represented Israel’s return to the Promised Land under Joshua. No doubt Naomi and Ruth crossed the Jordan at the same place that the Israelites had crossed earlier from the land of Moab.

Moab, then, represents both Egypt and the wilderness during Israel’s 40-year wandering. Moab was the last country of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness. The return of Naomi and Ruth conveys Israel’s return to the Promised Land and to their lost inheritance. The manner in which they were able to receive their inheritance forms the main bulk of the story itself.

Whereas Joshua conquered the land through war in order to obtain the promised inheritance, the book of Ruth portrays this theme through love and marriage. The contrast is great, because God intended for us to know that our own inheritance, the glorified body that was lost through Adam, cannot be obtained by the power of a physical sword. The physical sword was an Old Covenant weapon, which could reclaim only a type and shadow of the real inheritance. The real “land” inheritance is our body, reclaimed through the power of the New Covenant sword of the Spirit.

Hence, we see that the book of Ruth anticipates the New Covenant, even though it is set in the context of the Old Covenant era. This makes it particularly relevant to us today. Yet it is only by understanding the contrast between the Old Covenant conquest of Canaan and the New Covenant concept that “love never fails” (1 Corinthians 13:8) that we are truly able to apply the principles in the book of Ruth in the way that God intended from the beginning.

In other words, we must maintain a New Covenant viewpoint in reading the book of Ruth, even while understanding its Old Covenant setting. Likewise, the law in Deuteronomy 25 should be viewed as a law of sonship, conveyed in Old Covenant terms, but requiring a New Covenant application in order to obtain our lost inheritance.

Moab

Elimelech and Naomi went to Moab to escape the famine in the land of Judah. We find that Elimelech died there, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, also died childless.

Moab thus provided the contrast to Bethlehem of Judah, for to them, Moab was a place of childlessness, while Bethlehem was the place where the Son of God was born.

Looking deeper into the meaning of the story, we find that Moab was not merely a place or condition that could never produce the sons of God. It was more complex than that, for it also reveals the legal reasons why the sons of God are NOT brought forth. To learn this, we must examine the origins of Moab itself.

Moab was one of the two sons of Lot, Abraham’s nephew, who were born out of incest. When God destroyed Sodom, where Lot was living at the time, two angels were sent first to investigate the crimes of Sodom. When the charges were proven to be true, the angels removed Lot and his family from the city before destroying it by fire. As the family fled to the mountains, it appeared to them that the whole world was on fire and that they were the only remaining people left on earth. The two daughters of Lot, raised in the immoral atmosphere of Sodom, were alarmed at the prospect that they might never marry, nor would they ever bear children.

Genesis 19:31, 32, and 36 says,

³¹ Then the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. ³² Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father…” ³⁶ Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.

Both daughters did this, one each night, and both became pregnant. Genesis 19:37, 38 says,

³⁷ And the first-born bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. ³⁸ And as for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.

Moab is from ab, “father,” and mo, literally “water” which in this case refers to semen, seed, or progeny. Hence, Moab means “from (her own) father, a reference to Lot. The meaning of the name can also be read as a question: “from what father?” Or, as it applies more specifically to the story of Ruth, “Who’s your daddy?” (Revised Ghetto Bible, or RBG)

Moab’s brother was named similarly, Ben-Ammi. Ben is “son” and Am is “people.” Ammi is “my people” or “My kindred.” We see this name again in Hosea 1:9, where the prophet’s son was named Lo-ammi, “not my people.” In Hosea 2:1, his name was prophetically changed to Ammi, “my people,” in order to show the grace of God in Hosea 2:23, “I will say to those who were not My people, “You are My people!” And they will say, “Thou art my God.”

Moab’s brother was named Ammi to indicate that he was a child of incest, having been begotten by one of his own kindred, namely his mother’s father. Both Moab and Ben-Ammi prophetically represent children begotten in an unlawful manner (Leviticus 18:6, 7). These laws define incest on a practical, earthly level, but they also apply on a spiritual level in regard to the sons of God.

Legitimate Sons of God

We have been given the right to become sons of God (John 1:12), but the path to sonship must be lawful in order to be legitimate. This is how Moab provides the backdrop to the book of Ruth, where we find only barrenness until the marriage in Bethlehem.

Some have no vision beyond becoming good servants of God, but many have also desired to be the sons of God. Of these, relatively few actually attain sonship. There are many reasons for this. Some violate the laws of sonship, usually out of ignorance, not having studied the law or understood how “the law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14).

The problem of “who’s your daddy” is only half the problem, because we must also ask, “who’s your mama?” This gets into the question of which covenant forms the basis of one’s faith. In other words, are we of Hagar or of Sarah? Paul explains this best in Galatians 4:22-31, but few seem to comprehend the apostle’s teaching. The deeper we dive into this teaching, the more complex it seems to get.

The common teaching today is that the earthly Jerusalem is the mother of the sons of God that will be glorified in the coming Kingdom as the Bride of Christ. But Paul informs us in Galatians 4:25 that the earthly Jerusalem is Hagar, and her fleshly children (“Ishmael”) are slaves, not sons. Galatians 4:28 says further, “you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.” The difference between a slave and a son is not one’s father but one’s mother. One’s mother is the covenant which we depend upon as the basis of our inheritance.

Those who love the earthly Jerusalem as their spiritual mother are those who desire to see Christ inhabit a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and who believe that Jerusalem will be the glorified capital of the coming Kingdom. On the other hand, those who claim the heavenly Jerusalem as their mother (Galatians 4:26) have “Sarah” as their mother, and these are the true sons of God.

For our immediate purpose, however, to understand the Book of Ruth, we should have some knowledge of the seedy origin of Moab and how the author of the Book of Ruth uses it as an unfruitful contrast to Bethlehem. The story itself paints a word picture which gives us a better understanding of New Covenant marriage and the laws of sonship.