skip to main |
skip to sidebar
1 Peter 3:6, gives perhaps the best example of submission by a wife to her husband when the verse said Sarah called Abraham “Lord”
Certainly if Sarah was the queen of submission then Ruth has to be the princess of submission because Ruth in similar fashion called Boaz “Lord” (Ruth 2:13) and even bowed to him (Ruth 2:10).
Some might say that Ruth was not in subjection but rebellious when Ruth did not follow Naomi’s advice to stay in Moab and in her mother’s home and when Ruth did not follow Naomi’s exact instruction on how to woo Boaz.
That would be a mistake.
Submission does not mean you disengage your brain and become a mindless robot repeating memorized words.
Ruth did not stay with her biological family in Moab because she would have been violating God’s Law on helping widows and especially widows in your own family. She was in subjection to Naomi but obeying and subjecting herself to a higher law.
Like wise when wooing Boaz, Ruth obeyed the scheme of Naomi’s plan but also recognized that it had been a long time since Naomi had wooed Elimilech and used her own words… not Naomi’s.
Boaz did not tell Ruth what to do… Ruth told Boaz what to do.
Personally speaking the last thing I would want in a wife would be drone-like and robotic submission… merely a reflection of my own self. I value independence and admonishment from time to time and that in no way diminishes subjection.
Even Sarah had to tell Abraham how the “cow ate the corn” from time to time.
There was an employer here in Corpus Christi who brought three of his employees into his office and handed them the keys to three identical !951 Chevy pickup trucks all painted jet black and retrofitted with Chevy 350 short block engines.
He gave all three a credit card and said come back in one year and report back to me.
When they got back the first guy stepped up and said…
I set out in my truck and headed to the east coast and traveled up the coast to Boston and parked on the beach and slept in the bed and watched the sun come up in the morning. Then I headed to the west coast to San Francisco and parked on the beach and watched the sunset. I met a beautiful young woman I bought her a wedding ring and we drove to Las Vegas and got married. I want you to meet her.
The second guy said. That truck you gave me was beautiful. I parked it in the garage so it would be protected it and occasionally I would take it to car shows sometimes as far away as San Antonio. I kept it cleaned and polished so I could return it to you in good shape.
The third guy said, it was a great truck but I used your credit card to improve it. I lowered the suspension, made some modifications on the engine and painted it Candy Apple Red with flame accents.
The employer told the first guy… this truck is now yours and I’m putting you in charge of my business. Let me see that wedding ring you bought on my credit card and congratulations on your new wife.
The employer told the second guy. You took really good care of my truck. Thank you. He took the keys and put the guy in charge of maintenance.
The employer told the third guy. You really fitted that truck to suit your own tastes. I suggest you find a job in that profession I don’t need you here.
Then the employer gave the keys to the head of maintenance and told him to change the truck back the way it was.
The employer is God. The truck is the Gospel and the employees are Christians.
The first guy took the Gospel all over the country and experienced the blessings associated with it. He had experiences that were of incalculable value.
The second guy was a caretaker of the Gospel. He loved it but only used it to associate with other people who loved it.
The third guy changed the Gospel and its message to suit his own tastes. He was not worthy of it.
I hope when Jesus comes that you all have put 100,000 miles on the Gospel message and it shows the signs of wear and use and your spiritual growth that comes from making the Gospel a part of your life.
When Boaz was considering taking Ruth as his wife he understood that their was a closer relative who scripturally had the right/obligation to take Ruth as a wife.
The un-named relative said he could not because it would “ruin his own inheritance” So Boaz took Ruth as his wife.
To find out how the un-named relative’s (Let’s call him Barney) inheritance might be impacted lets go back and look at the other example of Levirate obligation… Judah and Tamar.
After God killed Er (Tamar’s husband) Judah instructed his brother Onan to couple with his sister-in-law so that his deceased brother Er would have an offspring.
Onan refused to and God killed him as well. The reason Onan didn’t want to provide an heir for Er was because Er’s son’s inheritance would be greater than his own but if Er did not have a first born then Onan would receive the greater inheritance.
Onan’s greed trumped his righteousness and God killed him for it and he inherited… zero.
So how does that apply to Barney? If Barney took Ruth to be his wife it would somehow impact the inheritance of his existing children. Perhaps Barney only had daughters and if Barney had a son with Ruth the girls inheritance would be diminished. Who knows exactly?
Here’s what we do know exactly… Barney’s self interest trumped his spiritual obligation.
Barney was the real loser in this scenario because Ruth was the “Pearl of Great Price” and Barney, if his spiritual eye sight had been focused, should have been able to see that.
Boaz and Ruth were a marriage made in Heaven.
I’m in a discussion group with others who also proclaim Jesus Christ as their savior and I was surprised and even shocked at the response of several to something I had written. They said things like the Gospel should be so simple that a child could understand it and that we can’t really trust English words that were translated thousands of years ago from then original language.
These folks are leaders in their congregations (I don’t know where they attend). My feeling is that as a leader (myself) in a congregation that I am obligated to study and understand as much of God’s word as I can so I can help guide the flock in an intelligent manner.
I am dismayed that so many are content to suckle on the breast of spiritual naivety instead of partaking and dining with the family of Jesus Christ on a Thanksgiving feast provisioned by God himself.
Don’t be satisfied with leaders who only want to feed you with spiritual pablum. You deserve better.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” Matthew 5:38-39.
This passage is a general truism and perhaps meant to not only prevent aggression from escalating but also to illustrate a Christ-like behavior to the world. Certainly Jesus Christ provided the example for this when he let the Roman soldiers slapped him around.
But, in my opinion, its not a premise to be obeyed in an absolute sense.
For instance, If your child cursed you and slapped you should you turn the other cheek and invite him/her to keep slapping you? No, you would recall the passage, “spare the rod and spoil the child” and correct that behavior.
If you saw someone attacking your wife would you sit on the side line and remind her to “turn the other cheek?” Or would you intervene and give the scoundrel a good thrashing?
I’m afraid that I would correct the child and protect my wife and I think Jesus Christ would pat me on the back and say “good job Rob”
So when we read a passage like Matthew 5:38-39 (and others) we must consider why it was written and apply it in that circumstance.
Sometimes “turning the cheek” can advance the cause of Jesus Christ and other times “turning the cheek” can bring ridicule to the cause of Christ. Let's be careful how we interpret scripture so we can always advance the cause of Jesus Christ.
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation” Mark 16:15
Just before Jesus’ resurrection into Heaven he gave the Apostles the so called “Great Commission”. He commissioned them to go to the whole world and preach the Gospel. Of course he equipped them to do so by giving them the Gospel message to be preached, the Holy Spirit and the ability to speak that message in foreign languages.
Naturally some questions come up like “how could they accomplish this in their natural life spans?” And how were they to travel to lands and peoples who had not even been discovered yet like Eskimos and Peruvians and Japanese and Amazon Jungles?
Notice this passage…
“…if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister” Colossians 1:23.
Colossians was thought to have been written by Paul in about 62 AD and according to Paul, the Apostles had already “preached the Gospel to the whole creation”
Which seems to be impossible that in thirty years or so and without recorded miraculous means the Gospel message had gone to the whole world including the,,, Eskimos, Peruvians, Japanese and Amazonians.
Now maybe an Apostle paddled up the Amazon river and we just have no record of it (biblical or historical) or maybe words like “all” and “whole” shouldn’t be interpreted in a strict literal sense.
Perhaps “all” doesn’t mean all and “whole of creation” does not mean the entirety of creation. Perhaps it means the whole known world or perhaps the entirety of the ruling Roman world.
So as Bible students when we run across words like “all” or “whole” we should at least consider that those words might not be literal and in so doing not paint our selves in a position that does not seem to be probable.
There are 5 named women in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Two of them were gentiles… Rahab and Ruth. And two of them were women of Levirate marriage… Tamar and Ruth.
One of the gentile women, Rahab, had a son who married the other gentile woman… Boaz. Boaz married Ruth and Ruth became the daughter-in-law of Rahab.
So the intersecting point between being a gentile and a levirate wife in the lineage of Jesus Christ was Ruth.
Boaz’ mother was a gentile and Boaz’ wife was a gentile.
Consider the similarities and differences between Tamar and Ruth.
- Tamar’s father-in-law, Judah, had two sons killed by God because they were evil.
- Ruth’s father-in-law, Elimilech, also had two sons who died. The text doesn’t state that God killed them but that idea has to be considered because of the obvious parallel with Judah’s sons.
- Judah considered Tamar to be cursed and the cause of his son’s deaths.
- Judah started with three sons, lost two of them then gained two more. He finished with three sons.
- Tamar’s un-named mother-in-law died but Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi lived and reared Obed. Naomi was named because of her obvious righteousness.
- Tamar’s father-in-law, Judah, lived but Ruth’s father-in-law, Elimiech, died.
- Tamar seduced her father-in-law to have sex with her. There is no record that they ever married. Tamar’s twin sons were sired unrighteously but in spite of that her son Perez and his household became famous.
- Ruth carefully and righteously followed Naomi’s instructions to “court” Boaz and the text says they were married and had a son conceived out of righteousness named Obed.
- The people of Bethlehem blessed Ruth and recognized the parallels between her and Tamar.
- The people told Naomi that she was blessed to have Ruth and that Ruth had been better to her than seven sons. Poor Tamar never received such acclaim.
- Tamar and Ruth were both famous but one was better than the other.
