Ruth 3:1-6RUTH 3:1 "Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?" The book of RUTH now moves towards its climax, the marriage of Ruth and Boaz. Naomi takes some thought about Ruth's future and arranges things with the result that the marriage eventually takes place. There is only a small amount of other source material which deals with the peculiar events described. But this record is from the Word of God, so we are at least certain that it is genuine. We may suppose, however, that this was not a unique happening. Naomi says "shall I not seek rest for you", which means "I want to see you settled in life." The two women have a precarious position in life; the position of unprotected widows in the ancient world was usually very hard. And gleaning is at best a haphazard livelihood only meant to be temporary. So Naomi looks for something better. This is amplified by the phrase "that it may be well with thee": Ruth's marriage would certainly change both their lives for the better. RUTH 3:2 "And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnows barley tonight in the threshing floor." Naomi introduces the next logical step. Boaz was technically Elimelech's kinsman, therefore Naomi's by marriage. He was Ruth's kinsman in a more remote way. Threshing was often down in late afternoon and evening, when a wind might arise to separate chaff from grain. The threshing floors of Palestine were made in an open area, outdoors, of level places stamped down to make them hard. Ruth had been working with his servants, in fact she has received marks of special favor from Boaz. So the man to whom they are going to appeal is known to be of good character and generous. He is a principled man I have unanswered questions here. Perhaps a reader can supply some answers for me. Why did Naomi not make application to the nearer kinsman who is identified in chapter 4? She surely knew the other man; Bethlehem is simply too small a community for her not to have known the nearer kinsman. Was she aware of the impediment to marriage with the other kinsman (see Ruth 4:6)? Did she expect Boaz to be a better risk? Or did she expect Boaz to persuade the other kinsman to do his part? [I attributed the following comments regarding legal aspects of life among the Jews to Keil and Delitzsch, "Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume II", p. 481 ff. I have paraphrased the section, omitting some parts. wd] Certain legal relations came into consideration here. According to the laws of the theocracy, Jehovah was the actual owner of the land which He had given to His people for an inheritance. The Israelites merely had the use of the land which had been given them for an inheritance. The existing possessor of the a portion of land could not part with it or sell it, but it was to remain in his family forever. When anyone was obliged to sell his land, such as by reason of poverty, it was the duty of the nearest relation to redeem it. But even if it should not be redeemed, it came back, in the next year of jubilee, to its original owner, or heirs, without compensation. No actual sale took place in our sense of the word. A sale was actually just a lease, or the sale of the yearly produce of the land until the year of jubilee. See Leviticus 25:10-28. There was also an old customary practice, which had received the sanction of God through the Mosaic law, of Levirate marriage, or the marriage of a brother-in-law. Genesis 38. That is, if an Israelite who had been married died without children, it was the duty of his brother to marry the widow, his sister-in-law, that he might establish his brother's name in Israel by begetting a son who should take the name of the deceased brother, that the name should not become extinct in Israel. This son was then the legal heir of the landed property of the deceased uncle. Deuteronomy 25. The Law imposed this obligation upon the living brother, but it allowed him to renounce the obligation if he would take on himself the disgrace connected with such a refusal (Deut. 25:7-10). The Mosaic Law does not connect these two institutions, but it was very natural to place the Levirate duty in connection with the right of redemption. And this had become the traditional custom. The Kinsman-Redeemer According to the laws regarding punishment and retribution for crime, when a person was assaulted, robbed or murdered, it fell to the nearest kinsman to bring the criminal to justice and to protect the lives and property of relatives. This obligation was called "redeeming", and the man who was responsible for fulfilling this duty was known as a "redeemer" (Heb. go-el). The job of redeemer would fall to full brothers first, then to uncles who were the father's brothers, then to full cousins, and finally to the other blood relatives of the family (Lev. 25:48). The kinsman-redeemer of the Old Testament was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ as Redeemer. There were four requirements for the redeemer, both in the type and in Christ: 1. The redeemer must be a near kinsman. To fulfill this Christ took on human form. 2. The redeemer must be able to redeem. The price of man's redemption was the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). 3. The redeemer must be willing to redeem (Heb. 10:4-10). Christ was willing to be our Redeemer. 4. The redeemer must be free from that which caused the need for redemption; that is, the redeemer cannot redeem himself. This was true of Christ, because He needed no redemption. READ Ruth 3:9-13; 4:1-11. The nation of Israel as a whole required a Redeemer to redeem the lands which had been taken over by foreign powers, so they looked to Jehovah to become their go-el. The period of exile gave an even greater force and meaning to the term "redeemer" than it had before; and the book of Isaiah contains nineteen of the thirty-three Old Testament references to God as Israel's covenant redeemer. Topic: REDEMPTION RUTH 3:3 "Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking." Naomi instructs Ruth as to her preparations; she is to look her best. Her best clothes would be none too fancy. But it appears they were able to afford a little perfume, as the word "anoint" indicates. Some commentators note that a large mantle would have been included in this clothing. This is quite likely, because we know that she was able to carry home a large amount of grain which Boaz gave to her; and grain was often carried in a mantle which would be formed a bag for carrying things. RUTH 3:4-6 "And it shall be, when he lies down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. "And she said unto her, All that thou sayest to me I will do. "And she went down unto the floor, and did according to all that her mother in law bade her." Ruth is to remember where Boaz lies down so that she can later go and lie down at his feet. Maybe she was to uncover his feet so that he would wake up when they got cold. In any case, the position at his feet is the lowly one a petitioner would take. The whole action represents Ruth's request to Boaz that he act the part of a kinsman to her. Commentators are agreed that Ruth has marriage with Boaz in mind, although Naomi must have told her by now of the nearer kinsman. Maybe she was aware of the other kinsman's problem and that Boaz would end up being the correct man to approach. That would make Boaz' subsequent legal dealings with the kinsman just a formality; but perhaps the formality was required in any case. Why this particular method of approach we don't know. The symbol of Boaz mantle being place over Ruth is not uncommon; there is a lot of symbology in the Bible taken from clothing. Throwing the garment over the woman might have signified claiming her as wife. Ruth's simple reply shows her trust in Naomi and submission to her. Ruth is perfectly in tune with the plan of God. She honors her parent. She is aware of the channel of divine guidance provided through established family authority. She knows that the place of blessing is found in submission. This story provides examples of how well the Israelites understood principles what had been instituted by God. The first example we have is in Naomi and Ruth's refusal to appeal for charity but to work for a living even though they had rich relatives. The second example is that Ruth, although a grown woman, listened to Naomi's advice and followed it. |
|
|