skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A crucial key to understanding the Book of Ruth is understanding practices defined in the Law of Moses.
One of those is the possession of land. Elimilech and Naomi owned ancestral land in Judah. That land was theirs and their heirs in perpetuity. Yes it could be sold but ultimately would be returned during the year of Jubilee.
“But if they do not acquire the means to repay, what was sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and they can then go back to their property” Leviticus 25:28
So even though Elimilech and Naomi moved to Moab because of the famine they still owned their ancestral land.
Of course Elimilech and Naomi were in Moab for 10 years. Did the famine really last that long or was there some other factor in play? Also Moab was only 75 miles from Judah.
Another curious practice in the Law of Moses was the practice of levirate marriage.
“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. 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" Deuteronomy 25: 5-6
So in the case of Ruth there are no brothers that she can marry. In fact Naomi tells Ruth that she is too old to have other children. So apparently since there are no brothers to marry then it was the obligation of the nearest available relative. Enter Boaz.
The other Law of Moses practice to consider was that of gleaning fields.
"When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over them again. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not strip it afterward. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow" Deuteronomy 24:20-21.
So when Naomi and Ruth, both widows, get back to the land of Judah they take advantage of this jewish social security program and Ruth goes out to “glean” the fields. What a coincidence that the field she gleaned belonged to her future husband Boaz! Coincidence or the hand of God?
The Book of Ruth is an amazing book and it tells the story of an amazing woman named Ruth. Unpredictably a moabite woman enters the genealogy of Jesus Christ and the question is why?
Weren’t their plenty of Israelite women who could have filled this role? So why Ruth the Moabite woman?
After all God himself did put a curse on Moab…
“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:
Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee” Deuteronomy 23:3-4.
So why would God select a woman from Moab to be in his son’s genealogy?
Before we answer this question, gentle reader, note that nothing in the Book of Ruth happened by accident.
The famine didn’t happen by accident. The move to Moab was no accident. It was no accident that Elimilech, Mahlon and Chilion died in Moab. And it was no accident that Boaz was selected to be the husband of Ruth instead of the “near relative”
Ruth the Moabite woman was a convert to Judaism and was selected by God because there was no woman in Israel who was as righteous as she was. She was amazingly righteous. Stay tuned.
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” Jeremiah 9:25-26.
Circumcision of course was the mark of God’s covenant with Israel. In this text it is applied figuratively to “all” and to “various nations”
These nations were only “circumcised in the flesh” they were not “circumcised in their hearts”.
The mark of God’s people today that parallels circumcision is baptism. With baptism comes the “gift of the Holy Spirit” and the initiation of our relationship with God.
So what happens if we have our flesh baptized but our hearts remain un-baptized? Presumably the “day of punishment” awaits for those just like it did for the ones who were “uncircumcised of heart”
So is it possible to have only our flesh baptized? Of course it is. Especially if we do it for the wrong reasons… maybe to please a spouse or a parent or an employer or just to bring attention on to ourselves.
Here’s a question… does a baptized baby only have its flesh baptized? I think we know the answer to that one.
God wanted the hearts of his people of old and he wants the hearts of his people today. You may appear to human eyes to be baptized but human eyes can’t do what God’s eyes can do. They can’t look at the heart.
“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” Romans 12:2
Of course these verses introduce the concept of the “transformation” process that is necessary in Christians. Christians become new people by eliminating sin and selfishness from their lives and replacing it with goodness and caring about the needs of others.
Which begs the question… are you really a Christian if you are not being “transformed”?
The greek word for transformation is “metamorphoo” which is the same word from which we get the english “metamorphosis” i.e what happens when a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.
Imagine then a dark world full of caterpillars. Teeming masses crawling on their caterpillar bellies. Not very pretty.
As Christ’s light begins to shine in the world those ugly spiritual caterpillars are transformed (metamorphosed) into beautiful spiritual Butterflies.
You might be an ugly old caterpillar crawling on your belly on the earth and you might even be a baptized caterpillar but unless you begin the transformation process you will never be a beautiful Butterfly floating on the wind.
Help your former caterpillars transform it makes you an even more beautiful Butterfly.
“…speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” Ephesians 5:19-20
These verses are used generally to affirm the idea that musical instrumentation should not be associated with Christian singing because musical instrumentation is not mentioned in the text and would be a human addition to our singing. Kind of like adding Peas and Carrots to the Lord’s Supper.
That obviously is not the primary intent of these verses. However if this text could be used to prove that instruments of music are forbidden by the scriptures then I have a few questions.
- is this verse talking about singing in the assembly or singing by individuals outside of the assembly? Or both?
- what exactly is a “Psalm, Hymn or Spiritual song?”
Let me suggest that functionally the way we define “Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs” are those songs that are contained in our song books.
Of course that begs the question… what were “Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs” before there were song books?
There are plenty of songs in our culture that contain segments of scripture, spiritual themes and that mention God that are not in our song books.
Consider the song “Turn!Turn!” by Pete Seeger which quotes directly from Ecclesiastes. It’s not in our song book and yet most Christians who hear it on the radio would enjoy listening to it and even feel comfortable singing along with it.
Consider also the song “God’s Will” by Martina McBride which I recommend and is on my play list. Every time I hear that song I cry. It tell’s the story of a handicapped boy named Will. His mother calls him God’s Will. A neighbor meets Will and the lyrics go like this…
I've been searchin', wonderin', thinkin'
Lost and lookin' all my life
I've been wounded, jaded, loved, and hated
I've wrestled wrong and right
He was a boy without a father
And his mother's miracle
I've been readin', writin', prayin', fightin'
I guess I would be still
Yeah, that was until
I knew God's will
You see she learns God’s will by meeting God’s Will.
If that’s not a spiritual song then I don’t know what is and the fact that it is accompanied by instrumental music doesn’t diminish the message and the impact (on me) that the song has.
So if we take the position that Ephesians 5:19-20 regulates both the singing of individuals and congregations in terms of being accompanied by musical instruments and yet we feel comfortable even listening (and singing) to spiritual songs on the radio then we have a problem with our hermeneutic (method of interpretation).
Now don’t get the idea that I am campaigning for the use to instrumental music in our worship services because I am not. There are other reasons not to use musical instruments in our assembly.
One test of a hermeneutic is it’s application. Like when a Pharisee forbade healing on the Sabbath but would be okay with pulling an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath.
We must be careful that our hermeneutic doesn’t make us hypocrites. Like forbidding instrumental music accompanying “Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs” and yet singing to them on the radio.
