LuckyStrike
5th July 2011, 08:38 PM
The Parable of Ruth
By Pastor Eli James
“Let Reuben live and not die; and let not his men be few.” - Deut. 33:6.
“Woe to you, Moab, You are destroyed, O people of Chemosh. He has given up his sons as fugitives and his daughters as captives to Sihon, king of the Amorites.” – Num. 21:29.
Introduction: Ruth, the “Moabitess”
The Story of Ruth has been treated only as a historical account of one of the ancestors in the line of Yahshua. Ruth’s second husband, Boaz, was a Patriarch of that lineage. Ruth and Boaz bore Obed, the father of Jesse, and grandfather of David. Much speculation has been purveyed about Ruth’s racial ancestry. Those who preach the gospel of race-mixing insist that Ruth was a non-Israelite. A careful reading of the text proves otherwise, as Ruth is called the near kinswoman of Boaz. (Ruth 3:12.) Boaz’s exact words to her are, “And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.”
This verse alone should silence all of the false teachers, who slander Ruth as being a non-Israelite. In Chapter 4, Boaz proceeds to redeem the property of Ruth’s deceased husband, Mahlon. Since only the Israelites had such a redemptory custom, this is more proof that both Ruth and Mahlon were Israelites. It is evident from the Book of Ruth that Mahlon had moved into this territory, which was formerly occupied by the tribe of Moab, with his mother, Naomi. The mere fact that Ruth lived in the territory of Moab proves nothing about her ancestry. The same is true for an Irish woman living in America. Her living in America is not to be construed as proof that she is not Irish. Living in America does not erase her Irish ancestry. The same is true for Ruth.
Furthermore, the name, Moab, was already anachronistic in the days of Ruth, as the Moabites had long since been destroyed as a nation and people. For nearly two hundred years, up to the days of Ruth, the name of Moab lived on only as a territorial name.
Here is a thumbnail sketch of the history of that territory, as the land of Moab before Ruth:
The territory of the Moabites was originally east and north east of the Dead Sea. Moab's borders extended from the Arnon River on the south to the Jabbok River on the north, from the Dead Sea and Jordan River on the west to the mountains on the east. It was called Moab after the people who once lived there.
The Moabites, who once lived in this territory, were destroyed by the Amorites around 1450 B.C., while the Israelites were engaged in their exodus experience in the Sinai desert. The Moabites were conquered and driven from their land by Sihon, king of the Amorites.
"For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites." - Numbers 21:26-29.
Later on, these Amorites were destroyed by the invading Israelites, leaving no trace of either the Moabites or the Amorites. Here is the Biblical account: "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And Yahweh Elohim delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:" - Deuteronomy 2:32-34.
The book of Numbers gives a few more details: "We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there. And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. And the Lord said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land." - Numbers 21:30-35.
Thus, the history of this former territory of Moab is that it contained no Moabites at all while Ruth was living there!
Furthermore, it would have been a violation of Yahweh’s law for a Judahite to marry a racial Moabite. “An Ammonite or Moabite SHALL NOT ENTER into the congregation of Yahweh…Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days forever.” (Deut. 23:3-6.) Nehemiah 13:1-3 confirms this fact. Yahweh would break His own rules by allowing a racial Moabitess to enter the seedline of Yahshua Messiah. That is out of the question.
The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh were weary of wandering through the wilderness. They saw that the territory of Moab was fertile and asked Moses his permission to settle there. "And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashanhavothjair, unto this day. And I gave Gilead unto Machir. (16) And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon.” – Deut. 3:12-16.
The story of Ruth takes place only three generations before David, proving that the land of Moab was in Israelite hands during the entire judges period. The book of Judges gives us more details: "And Jephthah (of Israel) sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.” But Jephthah refuted the Ammonite claim, reciting Israel’s past victories over the Moabites and the Amorites. (Judges 11:12-26.)
The Bible itself proves that Ruth lived in Israelite territory her whole life. Hence, she was not a Moabitess by race. The Moabites were long gone before the days of Ruth. The story of Ruth takes place just before the days of Samuel the prophet, who anointed Saul as the first King of Israel. The Israelites were in total control of this former Moabite territory, and the few Moabites that were still living had been banished from this territory or merged with the Canaanite populations, which had always been totally separate from the Israelites. Knowing our own history makes all the difference in the world. Judeo fairy tales have replaced real scholarship. Ruth was an Israelite woman living in the former territory of Moab.
More than likely, she was a daughter of the tribe of Reuben. In her own words, she says to Boaz, “Your people are my people. Your God is my God.” She did not say, “your people WILL BE my people,” as the KJV has it, as those words were ADDED by the translators.
Harlots and Innkeepers
Before proceeding with the Parable of Ruth, there is another woman, whose reputation must be cleared: Rahab, the mother of Boaz, who is supposed to be a Canaanite harlot. Let’s see if this fable has any merit.
RK Phillips, in his study entitled, “The Truth About Rahab,” has this to say:
Deuteronomy, the Book of God's Royal Law, Chapter 7, makes it very plain that when the Israelites cross the Jordan into Canaan:
a. they were to destroy the entire population of those lands and everything that lived, including the cattle, sheep and asses;
b. they were NOT to make marriages with any of those peoples themselves, nor allow their sons and daughters to marry any of the descendants of those peoples.
It is quite evident that the Israelites of that generation which finally crossed the Jordan did observe these commandments. After the initial set-back at Ai was sorted out, their unbroken success in conquering the land for the next 30 years was proof positive that not one man dared to disobey even the least of those commandments — for they suffered swift and fatal consequences every time they stepped out of line.
Who, then, was this female ancestor of our Lord — Rachab — who is stated, in Matthew 1:5, to have married Salmon the son of Naashon, a prince of the Royal line of Judah, some time either before or after the Israelites occupied the Promised Land?
Every Bible translator and commentator, without exception, associates her with, or directly identifies her as `Rahab the harlot' who was saved alive from the massacre of Jericho. But the foregoing evidence shows that after the debacle at the first battle for Ai, no Israelite had dared to disobey God by marrying a Canaanite or any other foreign woman for at least 30 years after crossing the Jordan. Furthermore, Leviticus 21:7,14, state that no priest of God's Tabernacle was to take a harlot for his wife, and verse 9 states that if even the daughter of a priest played the harlot, she was to be killed and burnt in the fire.
Therefore, in view of these severe strictures, it is beyond the bounds of possibility for Jesus, who was (ed. is) a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek, to be the descendant of that `Rahab' who was saved out of Jericho unless it could be proved that she was neither a harlot nor a Canaanitess by race. It has already been proved, by the evidence of Scripture itself, that Ruth — who is similarly claimed by all the churches and commentators to be a heathen Moabitess — was neither a heathen foreigner nor was she a Moabitess by race, but a true daughter of Israel who lived in that land of Moab which the Israelites had taken from the Amorites. That land was still called Moab even though it was occupied by the tribe of Reuben until they were taken into captivity several hundred years later — 1 Chronicles 5:8,16,18-26. What, then, has Scripture to say concerning Rahab of Jericho? Was she neither a harlot nor a Canaanitess as stated in Scripture?
But the most surprising fact is that the harlot's name is NOT Rahab after all, for there is NO woman with the name of Rahab in the whole of the Bible! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Rahab is a poetic or metaphorical name applied on three occasions to the land of Egypt, with the meaning of being `haughty' or `proud', (see Psalms 87:4, 89:10 and Isaiah 51:9). But these three passages have nothing to do with Joshua, Jericho, or the harlot who lived there. The same Hebrew word `rahab' is, in fact, quite correctly translated in the Authorized version as `proud' in Job 9:13 and 26:12, but in Isaiah 30:7 it is incorrectly translated as `strength'. This verse reads — in the Hebrew text — "Egypt's help is vain and worthless therefore I have called her Rahab sitting still" — (or `Egypt the motionless').
The harlot's name is `Rakhab' (English pronunciation: `Raackharb',) a different Hebrew word to `Rahab', with a totally different meaning of "to widen" or "to make broad". It is not spelt with the Hebrew letter `He' as in Rahab, but with the letter `khet' (which has a hard gutteral aspirated sound like the `ch' in `loch' or in the German `macht'.
The Greek alphabet, however, has no equivalent letters corresponding to either `he' or `khet'. Hence, in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, the harlot's name is spelt `Ra'ab' in all passages where it occurs. And exactly the same spelling is used in the New Testament in the Greek text of Hebrews 11:31 and of James 2:25 — but NOT in Matthew 1:5. Furthermore, her name is always coupled with the designation `harlot' either directly or by association with this designation in the same context in which her name appears.
If Salmon's wife was indeed `Rakhab' the harlot, why is it then that, in the Greek text of Matthew 1:5, it is spelt `Raxab' and not Ra'ab as it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 and in every passage of the Greek text of the Septuagint where the harlot's name appears? And why is it that Raxab's name in Matthew 1:5 is not coupled with the term `harlot'? This is the first and only occurrence of this name in the New Testament.
Therefore IF Raxab was in actual fact the harlot of Jericho, then it is even more necessary to identify her here as the harlot than it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. It should be noted that the letter `x' in Raxab's name is the Greek letter `chi' which has the hard `ch' sound as in the English `chord' or `Christ'. Therefore the English pronunciation of the Greek name `Raxab' in Matthew 1:5 should be `Rachab' — with a short second `a' as in cab — NOT `Rahab' and NOT `Raackharb'.
On the other hand in Matthew 1:5 Rachab the wife of Salmon is clearly distinguished from ANY identification or association in any way with the harlot of Jericho:
1. by the different spelling of her name in the `original' Greek,
2. by the different pronunciation of her name,
3. by the absence of any offensive designation attached to her name,
4. by the absence of any reference to Jericho or any activity that took place there.
Nor is the absence of any such additional information about Rachab designed to `cover up' possible unfavourable personal references to individual members of Israel's Royal Line and of the human ancestors of Jesus in this genealogy. The Bible does not shrink from stating unsavoury `incidents' in the lives of any of Israel's famous people. This is demonstrated in the very next verse (Matthew 1:6) by the cutting reference to Bathsheba — not by recording her name, but by bringing her name to mind only through her degrading act of adultery with King David. Again, there is the story of Judah's seduction by Tamar as told in Genesis 38:11-30.
Thus the whole evidence of Scripture is that Salmon's wife was NOT the harlot of Jericho, and in the absence of any other conflicting information concerning her, then the conclusion must be that her ancestry was as impeccable as that of her husband.
{Source: http://www.israelofgod.org/rahab.htm }
Thus, having cleared the names of Rachab, Ruth, Salmon and Boaz, we can proceed with the Parable of Ruth.
The Story Ruth
First, we will discuss the most significant passages of the text as given, then we will consider the parabolic meaning of Ruth’s life.
The Book of Ruth opens with these words:
1Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread. Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
Note that Mahlon and Chilion were EPHRATHITES, not EPHRAIMITES. Ephrata was probably the name of the founder of the settlement called Bethlehem or the name of a local god, well before the Israelites took possession of it. Bethlehem was already in existence during the days of Jacob and Esau, well before the twelve tribes returned with Moses, so that this town could not possibly have been named after Ephraim. That is complete nonsense. Gen. 35:19 records that Rachel was buried near Ephrata. Ephrata was NOT a descendant of Ephraim, as some people falsely believe, because Bethlehem-Ephrata was founded BEFORE Ephraim was even born. Thus, there is no connection between the Patriarch, Ephraim, and the town of Bethlehem-Ephrata, whose name was later changed to Bethlehem-Judah. The name change was due to the fact that the tribe of Judah settled there and took over the town. This verse is telling us that Mahlon and Chilion were residents of Bethlehem-Ephrata, during the days of the Judges.
The name, Bethlehem, derives from its origin as a Canaanite town, Beit-Lahama, or “home of Lahmo,” the Chaldean god of fertility. The suffix, ‘Ephrata,’ means, “the fruitful,” as this town lay in a fruitful valley. This is the etymology of the word, ‘Bethlehem-Ephrata.’ It has nothing to do with either the Patriarch Ephraim or the tribe of Ephraim.
In verses 11-13, Naomi bemoans the fact that she has no surviving sons to inherit the land that belongs to her.
Verse 15 contains a Hebrew idiom, which must be properly understood. “Her gods” should be understood as meaning “her land.” In those days, the land was understood as belonging to the local gods. Hence, the expression, “thy sister in law is gone back unto her people and unto her gods,” does not mean that Orpah was going back to worship the gods of the Moabites. It simply means that Orpah had decided to stay behind in the territory of her husband, in Moab. Even though the Israelites were forbidden to worship the local gods, the idea of these gods owning the local territory survived in the idiom. E. Raymond Capt has also argued that the expression, “her gods,” refers to the land she is to inherit as the widow of her deceased husband.
In II Kings, Chapter 5, we have the story of Elisha the prophet and Naaman, the Syrian military commander, who was afflicted with leprosy. Naaman was advised by an Israelite woman that the God of Israel could heal him of this affliction. Entering into the land of Israel, Naaman met the prophet Elisha, who told him to wash seven times in the Jordan River. After first sauspecting that Elisha was simply trying to make a fool of him, Naaman did as Elisha instructed and was completely healed. Naaman then offered Elisha payment for this miracle, but Elisha refused. Then Naaman said, in verse 17, “Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules burden of earth? For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto Yahweh.” Naaman had assumed that Yahweh was a local god, tied to the literal earth of Palestine! In order to worship this local god, Naaman took two mules’ worth of dirt back to Syria with him. Elisha did not try to disabuse Naaman of this false belief, but merely said, “Go in peace.”
This story demonstrates that it was common for local gods to be associated with a particular land. By failing to understand this idiom at Ruth 1:15, Ruth and Orpah have been falsely accused of being idol-worshippers. Even if we were to take the expression literally, it would not apply to Ruth, as verse 15 only applies to Orpah. In reality, Verse 15 is merely telling us that Orpah went back to her own land.
Note again that in verse 1:16, the words “shall be” have been added by translators!!! Without this addition, the correct translation is, “thy people ARE my people.” Again, the KJV has given fuel to the universalists by adding questionable words to the text. Gal. 4:4 confirms that Yahshua’s ancestry was pure, as He was “made under the law,” which prohibited the Israelites from marrying outside of their race, with the very specific prohibition against intermarrying with Moabites!
Ruth is determined to go into Bethlehem-Judah with Noami, who relents and takes Ruth with her. At Verse 20, Naomi asks to be called “Mara,” meaning bitterness, because of the loss of her husband and two sons. As it turns out, Ruth will become a major blessing to Naomi, whose tragedy will turn into unexpected joy.
Ruth Gleans During the Barley Harvest
Chapter 2 begins the relationship between Ruth and Boaz. Ruth takes a liking to Boaz and begins gleaning food for herself in his fields. Boaz sees Ruth gleaning in the fields and tells her not to glean in anyone else’s field but his. He also tells her to help herself of his well water, if she becomes thirsty. Ruth is amazed at his generosity and asks him why he treats a stranger with such kindness. Boaz tells her she has come to the right place: the land where Yahweh dwells with His People, Israel. At Verse 14, Boaz invites her to dinner; and the courtship begins.
At Verse 15, Boaz, the landowner, instructs his field hands to allow Ruth to glean even among the sheaves, indicating that the Wave Sheaf offering had already been made, so the time period is right after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Barley harvest was in full swing and the countdown to Pentecost under way. Ruth gleaned for herself and for her mother-in-law, Naomi.
In verse 20, Naomi says to Ruth, “Boaz is NEAR KIN to us, one of our next kinsmen.” Boaz is very closely related to Naomi, who is of the Tribe of Judah. But Ruth is more likely a Reubenite, as it was the Tribe of Reuben that settled in this former Moabite territory. This fact makes not difference to the Law, as the line of descent passes through the father, as long as the mother is of the correct race. The Twelve sons of Jacob had to marry non-Israelite wives. They were taken primarily from the daughters of Shem; but the daughters of Japheth and Ham were also kinswomen. Moses married a Midianite woman. This was a legal marriage, because the Midianites were descendants of Shem, who lived in the Arabian desert. This was before the Midianites became the enemies of Israel. Moreover, her father, Jethro, was a man of Yahweh, unlike the other Midianites who eventually made war against Israel.
Naomi’s Advice to Ruth
Toward the end of Chapter 2, Naomi actively engages in matchmaking, advising Ruth to stay in Boaz’s fields. At Ruth 3:3, Naomi suggests something quite amazing. She tells Ruth to go and lie down at Boaz’s feet while he is asleep. By any standard of courtship, this is quite a brazen thing for a woman to do. At midnight, Boaz wakes up, startled to find someone laying at his feet. He asks who it is. She says, “I am Ruth, thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.”
Ruth is asking Boaz for his protection. Under the circumstances, it is clearly a proposal of marriage. She is also asking him to exercise his right of redemption of a near kinswoman! Boaz immediately tells her that there is another man, who is an even nearer kinsman, who has the first right of redemption. This unnamed man must be consulted first, before Boaz can follow through. At Verse 14, Boaz tells Ruth not to say anything about her actions. The two of them could be accused of fornication, if the people found out about this very bold action on the part of Ruth. At Verse 18, Naomi understands what Boaz has to do and tells Ruth to be patient and wait.
Boaz Redeems Ruth
In Chapter 4, Boaz finds the nearer kinsman, who has the first right to redeem Elimelech’s homestead in the country of Moab. The kinsman at first agrees to redeem the property, but then Boaz tells him that there is an additional legal matter: He must purchase the property from the widow, Ruth and raise up heirs in the name of her husband, Mahlon. Upon hearing this, the nearer kinsman declines to redeem the property, as he is not willing to raise up children in another man’s name, for another man’s inheritance. This is the answer Boaz was hoping for; and the elders of the town all witnessed the shoe ritual, by which the nearer kinsman declines to redeem the homestead.
At Verse 10, Boaz agrees to raise up Ruth’s children in the name of Mahlon, the Judahite. At Verse 11, Ruth is compared to Rachel and Leah, confirming that Ruth is totally worthy of the name, Israelite. For Naomi, no better result could possibly have obtained; as her household was redeemed in the name of her husband and her two sons. Given the levirate law, Boaz became like her own son, raising up children in the name of Mahlon. Ruth’s son was named Obed.
The Book concludes by reciting the genealogy of David from Pharez: Pharez > Hezron > Ram > Amminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse > David - all pure-blooded Israelites, including Pharez, whose mother was Tamar, the granddaughter of Shem. The fact that Judah had married a Canaanite woman was irrelevant. Tamar was still a virgin and had not conceived by her previous husbands. Yahweh arranged for them to die before she could be impregnated by them. Although Shelah was older than Pharez, Shelah is not even considered as inheriting the birthright, since Shelah was a half-breed.
Since Deut. 7:7 forbids the Israelites to marry Canaanites, any offspring of such marriages are illegitimate and cannot be counted as Israelites. Pharez, despite being born out of wedlock, inherited the birthright of Judah by virtue of being a pure-blooded Adamite. This is proof that Blood counts more than marriage. Even though Pharez was a bastard by modern standards, he was still a purebred. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm this as a fact, as the men of Judah had to put away their non-Israelite wives are else be cast out of the congregation forever.
Israel took possession of the east side of the Jordan River early. Reuben, Gad and Mannasseh
The Parabolic Interpretation
A careful reading of the Book of Ruth shows that there are several Messianic themes running through the story. Ruth’s relationship to the Judahites of Bethlehem is a real life pantomime of Israel’s relationship to our Kinsman Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
First of all, the fact that Ruth lives outside of Judah is important. The country of Moab symbolizes Israel’s separation from Yahweh. Ruth represents Israel in Exile, both in terms of Israel’s being divorced by Yahweh for our disobedience and also in terms of our being cast out into the wilderness of Europe, beginning with the Assyrian deportations of 745 BC, which, as it turns out, began with Manasseh, Gad and Reuben, the three easternmost Tribes.
Ultimately, all twelve tribes were cast out into the wilderness, with Judah and Benjamin being taken captive under Sennacherib. Only the city of Jerusalem itself was spared defeat and deportation. Obviously, Yahweh had another , later deportation planned for Judah. Bethlehem-Judah was to be the birthplace of our Kinsman Redeemer, as it was the birthplace of Boaz, Ruth’s kinsman redeemer. Obed, the child of Ruth, besides being in the lineage of Our Messiah, symbolizes the New Covenant, or, the Christian Dispensation, as most Christians would say.
The meaning of the Hebrew name, Obed, is “serving,” implying our servitude to our Kinsman Redeemer, Yahshua. Since He redeemed us, we are to be His Servants. Yahshua literally paid the price for our past sins, thus liberating us from our divorcement, widowhood, or exile, whichever symbol you prefer. Therefore, we owe Him, big time! Ruth’s relationship to Boaz is our relationship to Yahshua. He purchased our estate, so that we could ultimately inherit it again! Like Boaz, Jesus was a full-blooded Judahite through Mary, thereby fully qualified to be our Kinsman Redeemer. Praise Yahweh!
Ruth, having submitted herself to Boaz’s authority, represents True Israel submitting ourselves to Yahshua’s authority. When she lay down at Boaz’s feet, she totally humbled herself to him. Likewise, we Israelites have to humble ourselves, completely, before Him!!! He is our leader, our – pay attention, Israel – HUSBAND TO BE. Laying ourselves at His feet, we must boldly declare ourselves to be His and His alone!! The redemption comes before the marriage. And the marriage (the Wedding Feast of the Lamb) will bring forth a child: the Kingdom of Yahweh, with the Twelve Tribes of Israel established as the government of the Kingdom. (Rev. 21:1-12.)
Like Ruth, we Israelites are Yahshua’s “handmaids.” We are to put ourselves under the protection of His “skirts.” In this matter, we must be quite bold, as the lukewarm Christians of our day have become ashamed of Him, because He demands 100% loyalty to Him, and NO OTHER GODS!!!! The Judeo-Christians of today’s world, the lukewarm church, worship myriad gods in His name. What an embarrassment! The Judeos are represented by Orpah, who stayed in Moab, outside of Israel. Orpah does not enter the Kingdom, as she opted to stay in Moab.
By Pastor Eli James
“Let Reuben live and not die; and let not his men be few.” - Deut. 33:6.
“Woe to you, Moab, You are destroyed, O people of Chemosh. He has given up his sons as fugitives and his daughters as captives to Sihon, king of the Amorites.” – Num. 21:29.
Introduction: Ruth, the “Moabitess”
The Story of Ruth has been treated only as a historical account of one of the ancestors in the line of Yahshua. Ruth’s second husband, Boaz, was a Patriarch of that lineage. Ruth and Boaz bore Obed, the father of Jesse, and grandfather of David. Much speculation has been purveyed about Ruth’s racial ancestry. Those who preach the gospel of race-mixing insist that Ruth was a non-Israelite. A careful reading of the text proves otherwise, as Ruth is called the near kinswoman of Boaz. (Ruth 3:12.) Boaz’s exact words to her are, “And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.”
This verse alone should silence all of the false teachers, who slander Ruth as being a non-Israelite. In Chapter 4, Boaz proceeds to redeem the property of Ruth’s deceased husband, Mahlon. Since only the Israelites had such a redemptory custom, this is more proof that both Ruth and Mahlon were Israelites. It is evident from the Book of Ruth that Mahlon had moved into this territory, which was formerly occupied by the tribe of Moab, with his mother, Naomi. The mere fact that Ruth lived in the territory of Moab proves nothing about her ancestry. The same is true for an Irish woman living in America. Her living in America is not to be construed as proof that she is not Irish. Living in America does not erase her Irish ancestry. The same is true for Ruth.
Furthermore, the name, Moab, was already anachronistic in the days of Ruth, as the Moabites had long since been destroyed as a nation and people. For nearly two hundred years, up to the days of Ruth, the name of Moab lived on only as a territorial name.
Here is a thumbnail sketch of the history of that territory, as the land of Moab before Ruth:
The territory of the Moabites was originally east and north east of the Dead Sea. Moab's borders extended from the Arnon River on the south to the Jabbok River on the north, from the Dead Sea and Jordan River on the west to the mountains on the east. It was called Moab after the people who once lived there.
The Moabites, who once lived in this territory, were destroyed by the Amorites around 1450 B.C., while the Israelites were engaged in their exodus experience in the Sinai desert. The Moabites were conquered and driven from their land by Sihon, king of the Amorites.
"For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon, king of the Amorites." - Numbers 21:26-29.
Later on, these Amorites were destroyed by the invading Israelites, leaving no trace of either the Moabites or the Amorites. Here is the Biblical account: "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And Yahweh Elohim delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:" - Deuteronomy 2:32-34.
The book of Numbers gives a few more details: "We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there. And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. And the Lord said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land." - Numbers 21:30-35.
Thus, the history of this former territory of Moab is that it contained no Moabites at all while Ruth was living there!
Furthermore, it would have been a violation of Yahweh’s law for a Judahite to marry a racial Moabite. “An Ammonite or Moabite SHALL NOT ENTER into the congregation of Yahweh…Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days forever.” (Deut. 23:3-6.) Nehemiah 13:1-3 confirms this fact. Yahweh would break His own rules by allowing a racial Moabitess to enter the seedline of Yahshua Messiah. That is out of the question.
The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh were weary of wandering through the wilderness. They saw that the territory of Moab was fertile and asked Moses his permission to settle there. "And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashanhavothjair, unto this day. And I gave Gilead unto Machir. (16) And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon.” – Deut. 3:12-16.
The story of Ruth takes place only three generations before David, proving that the land of Moab was in Israelite hands during the entire judges period. The book of Judges gives us more details: "And Jephthah (of Israel) sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.” But Jephthah refuted the Ammonite claim, reciting Israel’s past victories over the Moabites and the Amorites. (Judges 11:12-26.)
The Bible itself proves that Ruth lived in Israelite territory her whole life. Hence, she was not a Moabitess by race. The Moabites were long gone before the days of Ruth. The story of Ruth takes place just before the days of Samuel the prophet, who anointed Saul as the first King of Israel. The Israelites were in total control of this former Moabite territory, and the few Moabites that were still living had been banished from this territory or merged with the Canaanite populations, which had always been totally separate from the Israelites. Knowing our own history makes all the difference in the world. Judeo fairy tales have replaced real scholarship. Ruth was an Israelite woman living in the former territory of Moab.
More than likely, she was a daughter of the tribe of Reuben. In her own words, she says to Boaz, “Your people are my people. Your God is my God.” She did not say, “your people WILL BE my people,” as the KJV has it, as those words were ADDED by the translators.
Harlots and Innkeepers
Before proceeding with the Parable of Ruth, there is another woman, whose reputation must be cleared: Rahab, the mother of Boaz, who is supposed to be a Canaanite harlot. Let’s see if this fable has any merit.
RK Phillips, in his study entitled, “The Truth About Rahab,” has this to say:
Deuteronomy, the Book of God's Royal Law, Chapter 7, makes it very plain that when the Israelites cross the Jordan into Canaan:
a. they were to destroy the entire population of those lands and everything that lived, including the cattle, sheep and asses;
b. they were NOT to make marriages with any of those peoples themselves, nor allow their sons and daughters to marry any of the descendants of those peoples.
It is quite evident that the Israelites of that generation which finally crossed the Jordan did observe these commandments. After the initial set-back at Ai was sorted out, their unbroken success in conquering the land for the next 30 years was proof positive that not one man dared to disobey even the least of those commandments — for they suffered swift and fatal consequences every time they stepped out of line.
Who, then, was this female ancestor of our Lord — Rachab — who is stated, in Matthew 1:5, to have married Salmon the son of Naashon, a prince of the Royal line of Judah, some time either before or after the Israelites occupied the Promised Land?
Every Bible translator and commentator, without exception, associates her with, or directly identifies her as `Rahab the harlot' who was saved alive from the massacre of Jericho. But the foregoing evidence shows that after the debacle at the first battle for Ai, no Israelite had dared to disobey God by marrying a Canaanite or any other foreign woman for at least 30 years after crossing the Jordan. Furthermore, Leviticus 21:7,14, state that no priest of God's Tabernacle was to take a harlot for his wife, and verse 9 states that if even the daughter of a priest played the harlot, she was to be killed and burnt in the fire.
Therefore, in view of these severe strictures, it is beyond the bounds of possibility for Jesus, who was (ed. is) a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek, to be the descendant of that `Rahab' who was saved out of Jericho unless it could be proved that she was neither a harlot nor a Canaanitess by race. It has already been proved, by the evidence of Scripture itself, that Ruth — who is similarly claimed by all the churches and commentators to be a heathen Moabitess — was neither a heathen foreigner nor was she a Moabitess by race, but a true daughter of Israel who lived in that land of Moab which the Israelites had taken from the Amorites. That land was still called Moab even though it was occupied by the tribe of Reuben until they were taken into captivity several hundred years later — 1 Chronicles 5:8,16,18-26. What, then, has Scripture to say concerning Rahab of Jericho? Was she neither a harlot nor a Canaanitess as stated in Scripture?
But the most surprising fact is that the harlot's name is NOT Rahab after all, for there is NO woman with the name of Rahab in the whole of the Bible! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Rahab is a poetic or metaphorical name applied on three occasions to the land of Egypt, with the meaning of being `haughty' or `proud', (see Psalms 87:4, 89:10 and Isaiah 51:9). But these three passages have nothing to do with Joshua, Jericho, or the harlot who lived there. The same Hebrew word `rahab' is, in fact, quite correctly translated in the Authorized version as `proud' in Job 9:13 and 26:12, but in Isaiah 30:7 it is incorrectly translated as `strength'. This verse reads — in the Hebrew text — "Egypt's help is vain and worthless therefore I have called her Rahab sitting still" — (or `Egypt the motionless').
The harlot's name is `Rakhab' (English pronunciation: `Raackharb',) a different Hebrew word to `Rahab', with a totally different meaning of "to widen" or "to make broad". It is not spelt with the Hebrew letter `He' as in Rahab, but with the letter `khet' (which has a hard gutteral aspirated sound like the `ch' in `loch' or in the German `macht'.
The Greek alphabet, however, has no equivalent letters corresponding to either `he' or `khet'. Hence, in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, the harlot's name is spelt `Ra'ab' in all passages where it occurs. And exactly the same spelling is used in the New Testament in the Greek text of Hebrews 11:31 and of James 2:25 — but NOT in Matthew 1:5. Furthermore, her name is always coupled with the designation `harlot' either directly or by association with this designation in the same context in which her name appears.
If Salmon's wife was indeed `Rakhab' the harlot, why is it then that, in the Greek text of Matthew 1:5, it is spelt `Raxab' and not Ra'ab as it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 and in every passage of the Greek text of the Septuagint where the harlot's name appears? And why is it that Raxab's name in Matthew 1:5 is not coupled with the term `harlot'? This is the first and only occurrence of this name in the New Testament.
Therefore IF Raxab was in actual fact the harlot of Jericho, then it is even more necessary to identify her here as the harlot than it is in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. It should be noted that the letter `x' in Raxab's name is the Greek letter `chi' which has the hard `ch' sound as in the English `chord' or `Christ'. Therefore the English pronunciation of the Greek name `Raxab' in Matthew 1:5 should be `Rachab' — with a short second `a' as in cab — NOT `Rahab' and NOT `Raackharb'.
On the other hand in Matthew 1:5 Rachab the wife of Salmon is clearly distinguished from ANY identification or association in any way with the harlot of Jericho:
1. by the different spelling of her name in the `original' Greek,
2. by the different pronunciation of her name,
3. by the absence of any offensive designation attached to her name,
4. by the absence of any reference to Jericho or any activity that took place there.
Nor is the absence of any such additional information about Rachab designed to `cover up' possible unfavourable personal references to individual members of Israel's Royal Line and of the human ancestors of Jesus in this genealogy. The Bible does not shrink from stating unsavoury `incidents' in the lives of any of Israel's famous people. This is demonstrated in the very next verse (Matthew 1:6) by the cutting reference to Bathsheba — not by recording her name, but by bringing her name to mind only through her degrading act of adultery with King David. Again, there is the story of Judah's seduction by Tamar as told in Genesis 38:11-30.
Thus the whole evidence of Scripture is that Salmon's wife was NOT the harlot of Jericho, and in the absence of any other conflicting information concerning her, then the conclusion must be that her ancestry was as impeccable as that of her husband.
{Source: http://www.israelofgod.org/rahab.htm }
Thus, having cleared the names of Rachab, Ruth, Salmon and Boaz, we can proceed with the Parable of Ruth.
The Story Ruth
First, we will discuss the most significant passages of the text as given, then we will consider the parabolic meaning of Ruth’s life.
The Book of Ruth opens with these words:
1Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread. Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
Note that Mahlon and Chilion were EPHRATHITES, not EPHRAIMITES. Ephrata was probably the name of the founder of the settlement called Bethlehem or the name of a local god, well before the Israelites took possession of it. Bethlehem was already in existence during the days of Jacob and Esau, well before the twelve tribes returned with Moses, so that this town could not possibly have been named after Ephraim. That is complete nonsense. Gen. 35:19 records that Rachel was buried near Ephrata. Ephrata was NOT a descendant of Ephraim, as some people falsely believe, because Bethlehem-Ephrata was founded BEFORE Ephraim was even born. Thus, there is no connection between the Patriarch, Ephraim, and the town of Bethlehem-Ephrata, whose name was later changed to Bethlehem-Judah. The name change was due to the fact that the tribe of Judah settled there and took over the town. This verse is telling us that Mahlon and Chilion were residents of Bethlehem-Ephrata, during the days of the Judges.
The name, Bethlehem, derives from its origin as a Canaanite town, Beit-Lahama, or “home of Lahmo,” the Chaldean god of fertility. The suffix, ‘Ephrata,’ means, “the fruitful,” as this town lay in a fruitful valley. This is the etymology of the word, ‘Bethlehem-Ephrata.’ It has nothing to do with either the Patriarch Ephraim or the tribe of Ephraim.
In verses 11-13, Naomi bemoans the fact that she has no surviving sons to inherit the land that belongs to her.
Verse 15 contains a Hebrew idiom, which must be properly understood. “Her gods” should be understood as meaning “her land.” In those days, the land was understood as belonging to the local gods. Hence, the expression, “thy sister in law is gone back unto her people and unto her gods,” does not mean that Orpah was going back to worship the gods of the Moabites. It simply means that Orpah had decided to stay behind in the territory of her husband, in Moab. Even though the Israelites were forbidden to worship the local gods, the idea of these gods owning the local territory survived in the idiom. E. Raymond Capt has also argued that the expression, “her gods,” refers to the land she is to inherit as the widow of her deceased husband.
In II Kings, Chapter 5, we have the story of Elisha the prophet and Naaman, the Syrian military commander, who was afflicted with leprosy. Naaman was advised by an Israelite woman that the God of Israel could heal him of this affliction. Entering into the land of Israel, Naaman met the prophet Elisha, who told him to wash seven times in the Jordan River. After first sauspecting that Elisha was simply trying to make a fool of him, Naaman did as Elisha instructed and was completely healed. Naaman then offered Elisha payment for this miracle, but Elisha refused. Then Naaman said, in verse 17, “Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules burden of earth? For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto Yahweh.” Naaman had assumed that Yahweh was a local god, tied to the literal earth of Palestine! In order to worship this local god, Naaman took two mules’ worth of dirt back to Syria with him. Elisha did not try to disabuse Naaman of this false belief, but merely said, “Go in peace.”
This story demonstrates that it was common for local gods to be associated with a particular land. By failing to understand this idiom at Ruth 1:15, Ruth and Orpah have been falsely accused of being idol-worshippers. Even if we were to take the expression literally, it would not apply to Ruth, as verse 15 only applies to Orpah. In reality, Verse 15 is merely telling us that Orpah went back to her own land.
Note again that in verse 1:16, the words “shall be” have been added by translators!!! Without this addition, the correct translation is, “thy people ARE my people.” Again, the KJV has given fuel to the universalists by adding questionable words to the text. Gal. 4:4 confirms that Yahshua’s ancestry was pure, as He was “made under the law,” which prohibited the Israelites from marrying outside of their race, with the very specific prohibition against intermarrying with Moabites!
Ruth is determined to go into Bethlehem-Judah with Noami, who relents and takes Ruth with her. At Verse 20, Naomi asks to be called “Mara,” meaning bitterness, because of the loss of her husband and two sons. As it turns out, Ruth will become a major blessing to Naomi, whose tragedy will turn into unexpected joy.
Ruth Gleans During the Barley Harvest
Chapter 2 begins the relationship between Ruth and Boaz. Ruth takes a liking to Boaz and begins gleaning food for herself in his fields. Boaz sees Ruth gleaning in the fields and tells her not to glean in anyone else’s field but his. He also tells her to help herself of his well water, if she becomes thirsty. Ruth is amazed at his generosity and asks him why he treats a stranger with such kindness. Boaz tells her she has come to the right place: the land where Yahweh dwells with His People, Israel. At Verse 14, Boaz invites her to dinner; and the courtship begins.
At Verse 15, Boaz, the landowner, instructs his field hands to allow Ruth to glean even among the sheaves, indicating that the Wave Sheaf offering had already been made, so the time period is right after the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Barley harvest was in full swing and the countdown to Pentecost under way. Ruth gleaned for herself and for her mother-in-law, Naomi.
In verse 20, Naomi says to Ruth, “Boaz is NEAR KIN to us, one of our next kinsmen.” Boaz is very closely related to Naomi, who is of the Tribe of Judah. But Ruth is more likely a Reubenite, as it was the Tribe of Reuben that settled in this former Moabite territory. This fact makes not difference to the Law, as the line of descent passes through the father, as long as the mother is of the correct race. The Twelve sons of Jacob had to marry non-Israelite wives. They were taken primarily from the daughters of Shem; but the daughters of Japheth and Ham were also kinswomen. Moses married a Midianite woman. This was a legal marriage, because the Midianites were descendants of Shem, who lived in the Arabian desert. This was before the Midianites became the enemies of Israel. Moreover, her father, Jethro, was a man of Yahweh, unlike the other Midianites who eventually made war against Israel.
Naomi’s Advice to Ruth
Toward the end of Chapter 2, Naomi actively engages in matchmaking, advising Ruth to stay in Boaz’s fields. At Ruth 3:3, Naomi suggests something quite amazing. She tells Ruth to go and lie down at Boaz’s feet while he is asleep. By any standard of courtship, this is quite a brazen thing for a woman to do. At midnight, Boaz wakes up, startled to find someone laying at his feet. He asks who it is. She says, “I am Ruth, thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.”
Ruth is asking Boaz for his protection. Under the circumstances, it is clearly a proposal of marriage. She is also asking him to exercise his right of redemption of a near kinswoman! Boaz immediately tells her that there is another man, who is an even nearer kinsman, who has the first right of redemption. This unnamed man must be consulted first, before Boaz can follow through. At Verse 14, Boaz tells Ruth not to say anything about her actions. The two of them could be accused of fornication, if the people found out about this very bold action on the part of Ruth. At Verse 18, Naomi understands what Boaz has to do and tells Ruth to be patient and wait.
Boaz Redeems Ruth
In Chapter 4, Boaz finds the nearer kinsman, who has the first right to redeem Elimelech’s homestead in the country of Moab. The kinsman at first agrees to redeem the property, but then Boaz tells him that there is an additional legal matter: He must purchase the property from the widow, Ruth and raise up heirs in the name of her husband, Mahlon. Upon hearing this, the nearer kinsman declines to redeem the property, as he is not willing to raise up children in another man’s name, for another man’s inheritance. This is the answer Boaz was hoping for; and the elders of the town all witnessed the shoe ritual, by which the nearer kinsman declines to redeem the homestead.
At Verse 10, Boaz agrees to raise up Ruth’s children in the name of Mahlon, the Judahite. At Verse 11, Ruth is compared to Rachel and Leah, confirming that Ruth is totally worthy of the name, Israelite. For Naomi, no better result could possibly have obtained; as her household was redeemed in the name of her husband and her two sons. Given the levirate law, Boaz became like her own son, raising up children in the name of Mahlon. Ruth’s son was named Obed.
The Book concludes by reciting the genealogy of David from Pharez: Pharez > Hezron > Ram > Amminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse > David - all pure-blooded Israelites, including Pharez, whose mother was Tamar, the granddaughter of Shem. The fact that Judah had married a Canaanite woman was irrelevant. Tamar was still a virgin and had not conceived by her previous husbands. Yahweh arranged for them to die before she could be impregnated by them. Although Shelah was older than Pharez, Shelah is not even considered as inheriting the birthright, since Shelah was a half-breed.
Since Deut. 7:7 forbids the Israelites to marry Canaanites, any offspring of such marriages are illegitimate and cannot be counted as Israelites. Pharez, despite being born out of wedlock, inherited the birthright of Judah by virtue of being a pure-blooded Adamite. This is proof that Blood counts more than marriage. Even though Pharez was a bastard by modern standards, he was still a purebred. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm this as a fact, as the men of Judah had to put away their non-Israelite wives are else be cast out of the congregation forever.
Israel took possession of the east side of the Jordan River early. Reuben, Gad and Mannasseh
The Parabolic Interpretation
A careful reading of the Book of Ruth shows that there are several Messianic themes running through the story. Ruth’s relationship to the Judahites of Bethlehem is a real life pantomime of Israel’s relationship to our Kinsman Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
First of all, the fact that Ruth lives outside of Judah is important. The country of Moab symbolizes Israel’s separation from Yahweh. Ruth represents Israel in Exile, both in terms of Israel’s being divorced by Yahweh for our disobedience and also in terms of our being cast out into the wilderness of Europe, beginning with the Assyrian deportations of 745 BC, which, as it turns out, began with Manasseh, Gad and Reuben, the three easternmost Tribes.
Ultimately, all twelve tribes were cast out into the wilderness, with Judah and Benjamin being taken captive under Sennacherib. Only the city of Jerusalem itself was spared defeat and deportation. Obviously, Yahweh had another , later deportation planned for Judah. Bethlehem-Judah was to be the birthplace of our Kinsman Redeemer, as it was the birthplace of Boaz, Ruth’s kinsman redeemer. Obed, the child of Ruth, besides being in the lineage of Our Messiah, symbolizes the New Covenant, or, the Christian Dispensation, as most Christians would say.
The meaning of the Hebrew name, Obed, is “serving,” implying our servitude to our Kinsman Redeemer, Yahshua. Since He redeemed us, we are to be His Servants. Yahshua literally paid the price for our past sins, thus liberating us from our divorcement, widowhood, or exile, whichever symbol you prefer. Therefore, we owe Him, big time! Ruth’s relationship to Boaz is our relationship to Yahshua. He purchased our estate, so that we could ultimately inherit it again! Like Boaz, Jesus was a full-blooded Judahite through Mary, thereby fully qualified to be our Kinsman Redeemer. Praise Yahweh!
Ruth, having submitted herself to Boaz’s authority, represents True Israel submitting ourselves to Yahshua’s authority. When she lay down at Boaz’s feet, she totally humbled herself to him. Likewise, we Israelites have to humble ourselves, completely, before Him!!! He is our leader, our – pay attention, Israel – HUSBAND TO BE. Laying ourselves at His feet, we must boldly declare ourselves to be His and His alone!! The redemption comes before the marriage. And the marriage (the Wedding Feast of the Lamb) will bring forth a child: the Kingdom of Yahweh, with the Twelve Tribes of Israel established as the government of the Kingdom. (Rev. 21:1-12.)
Like Ruth, we Israelites are Yahshua’s “handmaids.” We are to put ourselves under the protection of His “skirts.” In this matter, we must be quite bold, as the lukewarm Christians of our day have become ashamed of Him, because He demands 100% loyalty to Him, and NO OTHER GODS!!!! The Judeo-Christians of today’s world, the lukewarm church, worship myriad gods in His name. What an embarrassment! The Judeos are represented by Orpah, who stayed in Moab, outside of Israel. Orpah does not enter the Kingdom, as she opted to stay in Moab.