Chapter 9: The Faith of a Foreign Woman (Gleanings from Ruth)
Notes
Transcript
Handout
Main Idea of The Story: God is redeeming a people for himself from every nation, tribe, people, and language, for his own glory through Jesus Christ.
Text for the Chapter: Ruth
Text for the Sermon: Ruth 2-4
The Lower Story in Ruth
The Lower Story in Ruth
10 And they said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” 11 But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? 12 Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, 13 would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.”
Why does Naomi appeal to the fact that she has no other sons for Ruth or Orpah to marry as the reason they should return to Moab? What cultural practice is she referring to? Naomi is referring to the system of Levirate marriage, in which a widow with no sons would marry her deceased husband’s brother.
The Levirate Marriage System
The Levirate Marriage System
5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
If a married man died with no male offspring, what was the responsibility of the deceased husband’s brother? To marry his sister-in-law, provide her with a son, and care for her as his own wife.
We, as New Covenant believers, are not under the Mosaic Covenant, so this system does not apply directly to us. But, it does tell us something important about God and how we are supposed to take care of others.
What were the reasons Scripture gives (and implies) for this system of Levirate marriage?
Posterity—To ensure that the deceased husband’s name didn’t die out.
Protection—To provide for and protect widows from poverty and exploitation.
Property—To ensure that the family’s inheritance and property didn’t go to another clan.
(Since Israel was a patrilineal society like ours, family names and lineages were traced through the male side of the family. A man with no sons, therefore, had no one to carry on his name.)
7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’
10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’
What would be done to a man who refused to fulfill his Levirate marriage obligation to his deceased brother’s wife? His sister-in-law could bring him before the elders of the city, publicly shame him, and spit in his face. He would then be known by a shameful nickname, “The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.”
This passage reveals that there was a very strong social expectation and obligation placed on the brother-in-law. The primary beneficiary of this arrangement was the widow (and her husband’s estate/name), not the brother-in-law.
For the brother-in-law it was a duty/obligation that didn’t necessarily benefit him, and could cost him a great deal. None of the property/inheritance of his deceased brother would go to him or his children; it would all go to the firstborn son of his brother.
Furthermore, if he had more children with his sister-in-law (now wife), those children would be considered his own, which would further split his own inheritance
Redemption and The Year of Jubilee
Redemption and The Year of Jubilee
If a family fell on hard times and was struggling, they had a couple of options for getting out of that situation. Think of these as sort of like the Old Covenant version of Bankruptcy. They were last resort options, but they were means of getting out of the hole.
The first option was to sell your property. Every Israelite family inherited land passed down through their family, so everyone had this asset they could cash in on if they needed to in hard times.
23 “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. 24 And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land. 25 “If your brother becomes poor and sells part of his property, then his nearest redeemer shall come and redeem what his brother has sold.
26 If a man has no one to redeem it and then himself becomes prosperous and finds sufficient means to redeem it, 27 let him calculate the years since he sold it and pay back the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and then return to his property.
28 But if he does not have sufficient means to recover it, then what he sold shall remain in the hand of the buyer until the year of jubilee. In the jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his property.
What restrictions were placed upon the sale of Israelite-owned property, under the Mosaic Covenant?
Land could not be permanently sold outside the family.
A near relative (kinsman-redeemer) could redeem (purchase back) the land at any time, at a prorated rate.
The original owner retained the right to redeem their property at any time, at a prorated rate.
The land reverted back to the original owner at the Year of Jubilee.
Another option was to contract yourself and/or your family into indentured servitude. This wasn’t quite slavery, it was a contracted period of time where you agreed to work for little or no pay, and instead have your wages applied to your debt. There were all kinds of laws that regulated this system to prevent it from degrading into slavery.
39 “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
We won’t go into that right now since it doesn’t apply to the story of Ruth, but this had the same provisions as the sale of property.
If you had a contract for indentured servitude, no matter the length it was for, you were freed at the Year of Jubilee. And the same was true if you sold your property. At the year of Jubilee, you got the property back.
10 And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan.
The “Year of Jubilee” occurred every 50 years. In the Year of Jubilee, any property that had been sold was returned to its original owner and any indentured servants were freed.
Why do you think God included such restrictions on the sale of land and contracts for service in the Old Covenant? What does this tell us about God? These rules were to protect the property rights of the family/clan to which God had assigned the land, and personal dignity. These laws prevented poor people from being exploited and prevented the rich from accumulating land at the expense of the poor. It gave a guaranteed “reset” date so that cycles of poverty weren’t perpetuated endlessly. It tells us that God cares about how we treat the poor and destitute.
In the book of Ruth, it seems likely that Elimelech has sold off his property before they left for Moab.
Now, he would have retained the deed to the land and the right to redeem it at any point. But then he died. At his death, the right of redemption passed to his eldest son. When his eldest son died, it passed to his youngest son. When he, too, died, Naomi held the title temporarily, but it seems unlikely that she could have actually redeemed it herself, since women weren’t usually permitted to own property.
If Naomi was able to redeem it herself, and subsequently remarried outside her husband’s clan, then the property would be transferred outside the clan which was generally prohibited. Regardless, she lacked the financial ability to redeem it anyhow.
So, Naomi can’t inherit the property herself, even though she holds the title, and she has no sons to pass it down to. So, what would happen to the land when Naomi died? It definitely wouldn’t go to Ruth. If it was sold already, then it’s possible that the land fell into a gap in the Law and may have become the permanent property of the buyer. Unless it was redeemed, that is...
The Kinsman-Redeemer in Ruth
The Kinsman-Redeemer in Ruth
Both the Levirate Marriage and the Redemption system depended upon the obligation of close relatives to take care of their own family.
The closest surviving male relative(s) of the head of the family was/were known as the “Kinsman Redeemer,” and he/they had the right and obligation to:
Redeem property that his relatives had sold to pay off debt.
Redeem his close relatives from indentured service.
Redeem his kin’s name/legacy by fulfilling his Levirate marriage responsibilities to the surviving widow.
In order for redemption to occur, the redeemer had to:
Meet the legal requirements (closest living male relative).
Have enough money to afford the purchase.
Have a desire to complete the redemption.
So, with all that background, let’s take a look at what unfolds in the last half of Ruth’s story.
In the first part of chapter 2, Ruth has been working hard all day gleaning in the fields of a man named Boaz. Boaz is impressed by her work ethic, and even more impressed when he discovers that she’s the Moabite lady he’s been hearing about whose loyalty to her mother-in-law has impressed the whole town.
11 But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. 12 The Lord repay you for what you have done, and a full reward be given you by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge!”
Boaz makes sure she has plenty of grain and some leftovers from lunch when she goes home to Naomi. When Naomi hears about Ruth’s day, she’s noticeably excited.
18 And she took it up and went into the city. Her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also brought out and gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied. 19 And her mother-in-law said to her, “Where did you glean today? And where have you worked? Blessed be the man who took notice of you.”
So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, “The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz.” 20 And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed by the Lord, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!” Naomi also said to her, “The man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers.”
Naomi would have already known that she had some kinsman redeemers in the area (close relatives of her deceased husband Elimelech), so why does Naomi get so excited when she hears who has been looking out for Ruth? Having a redeemer who had the qualifications, ability, and desire to redeem their kin was likely rare, and even more so when it involved a foreign (Moabite) woman. Boaz was a rare example of someone who was legally qualified, financially able, and desired to help.
In chapter 3, Ruth essentially proposes to Boaz, a bold (but humble) proposition that surprises and impresses him. She comes to him at night at the threshing floor, where she knows she can catch him away from everyone else. This prevents him from being put in an awkward situation or shamed if he doesn’t wish to accept her offer.
Boaz accepts her offer, but knows there is one little wrinkle...
11 And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. 12 And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. 13 Remain tonight, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good; let him do it. But if he is not willing to redeem you, then, as the Lord lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning.”
1 Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. 2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down.
3 Then he said to the redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech.
4 So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ‘Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.”
5 Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.” 6 Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”
Why was the unnamed redeemer initially willing to purchase/redeem Naomi and her property? Since Naomi was childless and past child-bearing age, taking Naomi as a wife had no chance of producing any offspring that would inherit her land. Her land, therefore, would be a straightforward purchase, which would be passed down to his own children.
Why did the unnamed redeemer reverse his decision after it was made clear that the sale also made Ruth his wife? Ruth was young and of child-bearing age. Redeeming the land would require marrying Ruth, a Moabite, and having at least one son with her. That son would inherit Naomi’s land, and any other children he had with Ruth would split his own children’s inheritance even further. Also providing for another wife and more children would significantly stretch his resources. The deal changed from being very profitable and beneficial for him to being very costly and beneficial only for his extended family.
In the Lower story, we see:
Exemplary faith in Ruth
Examples of clinging to God and his people in hard times
Examples of compassion and grace in Boaz
The Upper Story in Ruth
The Upper Story in Ruth
In the Upper story of Ruth, we’re asking the question, “How does Ruth’s story fit into the big picture of Scripture? What cosmic/greater purpose is God working towards through Ruth that she doesn’t see at the time?”
Ruth’s redemption through Boaz is a type/pattern that points to our redemption through Jesus.
And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I.
In the Lower story context, Boaz is obviously referring to the other, unnamed kinsman redeemer in ch. 4. But, in the Upper Story context, his words foreshadow another, greater redeemer who is closer to us than Boaz or any other person.
“And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression,” declares the Lord.
Think of the story of Ruth and Boaz, as well as what Christ has done for us. What similarities do you see between the two stories? How does Boaz point us to Christ?
Ruth was desperate, and she was a Gentile who had no legal right to demand redemption. She was at the mercy and grace of her redeemer. Our situation before Christ was the same.
Boaz owed Ruth, a Moabite, nothing. He was under no obligation to redeem her. He may have had obligations to Naomi under the Law, but not to Ruth. He could have denied her request and done no wrong whatsoever. She was not an Israelite, she was not under the covenant, and Boaz could have rightly argued that Mahlon had no business marrying her in the first place and that perhaps his death was the judgment of God.
He could have made that argument and been totally justified, especially considering the substantial financial cost to him, not to mention marrying a foreign woman half his age. But instead, he showed extravagant grace and compassion to her.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—
12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Ruth could only be redeemed by one who met the legal requirements (i.e., a “brother”). Our redeemer had to be like us.
14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Jesus had to be made our “brother,” which required being born a human, in order to be an acceptable redeemer. He had to be a “kinsman” in order to be a “kinsman redeemer.”
Boaz was the only redeemer both able and willing to redeem Ruth. Christ is the only one who met those requirements for us, also.
23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Jesus is the only one who meets the unique requirements necessary to redeem us. He had to be human like us—a “brother”—but he couldn’t be a sinner like us. He had to be spotless, sinless, and eternal. That’s an impossible combination that only Jesus satisfies.
And not only is Jesus able, but he is willing.
45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord...
Because of Boaz’s redemption, Ruth’s son received the inheritance and adoption. Through Christ, so do we.
...In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace...
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
In the Upper Story, how does God use Ruth’s family and her redemption to accomplish our redemption? Ruth and Boaz’s son, Obed, ends up fathering the lineage that leads to Jesus Christ, our Redeemer.
The Old Covenant, including the laws about the Kinsman Redeemer, are primarily focused on the Jewish people. What does the story of Ruth, a Moabite, tell us about God’s greater plan? From the stories in Joshua and Judges, you could easily (but wrongly) conclude that God does not care for any people other than Israel. But, the story of Ruth demonstrates that God is not the God of Israel only, but of all peoples everywhere. Anyone who has faith in the God of Israel is acceptable to him.
34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Under the Old Covenant, in order to protect the property ownership of the clan, typically only Jewish sons received an inheritance from their father’s estate—wives, daughters, foreigners, and slaves were excluded from the inheritance. Read Galatians 3:26-29. What changes under the New Covenant? In the New Covenant, every believer in Christ is considered a “son,” in the sense that all believers—regardless of their ethnic background, slave/free status, or sex—receive a full inheritance. All believers in Christ, including men, women, slave, free, Gentile, and Jewish, are guaranteed a heavenly inheritance.
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
