ruth chapter 4 explained

Cancel {{#items}} {{/items}} Ruth 4. In the end, however, there are a number of reasons why Ruth chapter 4 is likely not intended to be a representation of a traditional levirate marriage ritual. Which hath not, … — The words may be rendered, Which hath not made, or suffered thy kinsman to fail thee; that is, to refuse the performances of his duty to thee and thine, as the other kinsman did. No preliminaries were necessary in summoning one before the public assemblage; no … . and his name shall be famous in Israel, for this noble and worthy action. Story of Ruth. Ten men— To be witnesses: for though two or three witnesses were sufficient, yet in weightier matters they used more. [1] See David R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), 95, 113. Rather, the unnamed male kinsman-redeemer (gō’ēl) is depicted as removing his own shoe. These two are singled out, because they were of a foreign original, and yet ingrafted into God's people, as Ruth was; and because of that fertility which God vouchsafed unto them above their predecessors, Sarah and Rebecca. First of all, removing shoes as part of the covenant-making process in ancient Semitic societies signaled the participants’ willingness to divest themselves of some possession—often property which they formerly had a right to. It is a legally binding acknowledgment that what was once yours is no longer such, of your own free will and choice. ( Rth 4:6) The nearer kinsman declines his right of redemption towards the property and posterity of Elimelech. The salient portion of Ruth reads: “(Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. . Ten men — To be witnesses: for though two or three witnesses were sufficient, yet in weightier matters they used more. [6] First of all, unlike the widowed woman in Exodus chapter 25, Ruth does not spit in the face of the man who refuses to marry her, which many sources indicate is a requisite part of the ceremony of levirate marriage. . b. [56] Walter L. Wilson, A Dictionary of Bible Types (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 48. The man was glad to buy the land, so that it would still belongto Elimelech’s relatives. It is quite another thing to realize that the land will ultimately belong to the son whom one will raise up for the deceased. [5] Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. From the gate — That is, from among the inhabitants dwelling within the gate of this city, which was Bethlehem-judah. Famous — Heb. Fourth, the words for the levirate obligation (yābām) and for the kinsman-redeemer (gā’ēl) are totally unrelated. . . A narrative parenthesis explains the significance of what happens next. [25] One text notes, “When someone sells his property . This was a testimony — This was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases. [23] Speiser, “Shoes,” 18. READ RUTH CHAPTER 4 all. . And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed” (Deuteronomy 25:9–10). 4 I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. (9-12) Birth of Obed. Ephrathah is another name for Bethlehem, as seen in the parallelism of this verse. The former is appropriate methodology, whereas the latter does violence to the text and is often pejoratively referred to as “proof-texting.”. Ruth 4:17. Of course, from a gospel perspective, the forfeiture of the premortal world (or “first estate”) is permanent only in that we will never again be in that same state (as spirits abiding in the presence of the Father). However, we must be cautious to approach the passage exegetically rather than eisegetically [19] if we wish to avoid the pitfalls encountered by previous exegetes. This is, in part, no doubt due to the social function of clothing, meaning that we often use clothing as a form of communication in which we inform others as to how we define ourselves and our relationship to the greater community. [24] Records from Nuzi, an ancient Mesopotamian city, attest to a ceremony of property transfer or land ownership wherein the person selling (or transferring property) must remove his shoes as evidence that the transfer had indeed taken place. 4 Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate(A)and sat down there just as the guardian-redeemer[a](B)he had mentioned(C)came along. Of course, Christ received his inheritance of the land just as each of us does—through obedience to the Father. 4. Rachel is placed before Leah, because she was his most lawful, and best-beloved wife. Then is it not possible that the rite manifests their hope of gaining something better through the fulfillment of their part in the covenant? Then went Boaz up to the gate of the city--a roofed building, unenclosed by walls; the place where, in ancient times, and in many Eastern towns still, all business transactions are made, and where, therefore, the kinsman was most likely to be found. Shoes, slippers, and sandals are important symbolic articles for ancient and modern Israel—God’s covenant people. Howev… . And he turned aside, and sat down. Buy it — According to the law, Deuteronomy 25:5. Chapter 4 is also a stark contrast to what we read in chapter 1. This is evidenced by the fact that one puts on ceremonial clothes twice during the temple endowment, but one removes and replaces the shoes only once—specifically when Adam and Eve leave Eden and you and I metaphorically leave the premortal realm. (1-2) Boaz meets the nearer kinsman at the city gates. Thus he that forsakes all for Christ, shall find more than all with him. As the evidence shows, levirate marriage and the ceremony regarding the transferal of property are not equivalent, or even harmonious, rites. Chapter 4. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, "Sit down here," and they sat down. . . Yābām can mean either “husband’s brother,” or to perform the duty of such to “a brother’s widow.” [12] However, the book of Ruth does not use yābām but rather the term gā’ēl, which indicates a redeemer (particularly of consecrated things or people) or an avenger and signifies that these roles are performed based on the authority of kinship. True, slaves were seen as property and thus the owner had a right to them—and in this regard one might conjecture some connection between the passage and the “ceremony of the shoe.” However, the context of the passage at hand suggests that these were not slaves in the proper sense of the word (i.e., those without legal rights). . . E. A. Speiser, however, noted: “The ordinary interpretation of this saying that the poor could be enslaved for so trifling a thing as a pair of shoes is unconvincing . Alonzo L. Gaskill, “The 'Ceremony of the Shoe': A Ritual of God's Ancient Covenant People,” in By Our Rites of Worship: Latter-day Saint Views on Ritual in Scripture, History, and Practice, ed. xvi, etc. [6]. [28] As one commentator put it, “The meaning of this custom was that the adopter would never go again and put his foot in his former property.” Lacheman, Biblical Literature, 53. [7] See Cecil Roth, ed., Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971–72), 11:126. Therefore, the distinctions between the ceremony of the shoe in Ruth 4 and that which takes place in the holy endowment are more perceived than real. Photos illustrating the Book of Ruth, chapter 4. They called his name Obed — That is, a servant, meaning to express their hopes that he would nourish, comfort, and assist her, duties which children owe to their progenitors. But if you will not, tell me, so I will know. [10] Thus, again, something other than the standard levirate marriage ceremony is being depicted here. In the end, however, there are a number of reasons why Ruth chapter 4 is likely not intended to be a representation of a traditional levirate marriage ritual. W. C. Hazlitt noted that the Semites were not the only ones to use the “ritual of the shoe” as a symbol for divestment rites. Obed — A servant, to thee, to nourish, and comfort, and assist thee; which duty children owe to their progenitors. He wrote: “It appears to have been a custom among the Chinese for an official, on relinquishing his duties, to suspend his shoes in a conspicuous place.” W. C. Hazlitt, Dictionary of Faiths and Folklore: Beliefs, Superstitions and Popular Customs (London: Bracken Books, 1995), s.v. See also Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 312. We continue in our Ruth 4 commentary… Ruth 4 Commentary: Verses 1 – 2. Born him — Or, hath born to him; that is, to thy kinsman a son. Grant Building This could then be regarded as a public declaration that he was withdrawing from the property and handing it over to another person. Ruth 4:2 "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. ed. Provo, UT 84602 We made a trade, as it were. . The ceremony of the shoe highlights that desire and our commitment to connect ourselves to the Bridegroom, that redemption might take place and an inheritance might be received. However, the connotation or implications in temple worship is that we are surrendering more than just property (that is, the premortal abode), but also our personal wills. In contrast, going barefoot is occasionally utilized as a sign of mourning (see 2 Samuel 15:30; Ezekiel 24:17, 23). [11] See Roth, Encyclopaedia, 122; Bridger, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. He then passes on to Boaz the right to redeem the land. (Ruth iv, 7.) and he ‘lifts up his hand or foot from it, and places that of the new owner in it.’ Thus it is logical to conclude that this expression which had at first only a legal meaning developed into a symbolic meaning. As an aid to the memory, therefore, there arose the custom of drawing off the shoes in transferring a possession or domain. In what sense are they divesting themselves of something when they perform such an act? [44] One commentator suggests that perhaps “the Book of Ruth was written late, at a time when the old custom [of levirate marriage] had been modified.” See Mace, Hebrew Marriage, 100. . And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! Unfortunately there is some confusion surrounding this rite; namely, it is common for scholars to make blanket assumptions about this law and its ritual enactment in scripture and history—perhaps in part because what does appear in scripture regarding levirate marriage is scant at best. In typical patriarchal fashion the subject matter is not the women—Naomi and Ruth—but rather the dead man Elimelech’s land. Typologist J. C. Cooper noted that shoes represent control. Pharez — As honourable and numerous as his family was; whom, though be also was born of a stranger, God so blessed, that his family was one of the five families to which all the tribe of Judah belonged, and the progenitor of the inhabitants of this city. . Since Elimelech’s daughter-in-law is still able to provide an heir for her dead husband’s name and land, the kinsman-redeemer is, in effect, committing himself to providing that heir by buying the land. 2 Boaz took ten of the elders(D)of the town and said, “Sit here,” and they did so. There, Naomi returned to Bethlehem accompanied by Ruth, refusing to be called “Naomi” (Pleasant), but insisting on being called “Mara” (Bitter) instead. See also Richard Kalmin, “Levirate Law,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. Because of biblical evidence and extracanonical support, scholars believe that this rite was at one time very widespread in the ancient Near East. (1-8) Boaz marries Ruth. He appears to be, at best, a distant relative. . Despite involving the removal of a shoe, the context of the Deuteronomical rite shows that what is intended is significantly different from what is represented in the book of Ruth. [15] See Mace, Hebrew Marriage, 99; Campbell, Ruth, 160–61. John Piper Jul 22, 1984 574 Shares Conference Message. And they sat down. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem (Ruth 4:11). [46] Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lectures,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers—Second Series, ed. They met at the city’s gate. Ruth: May the Redeemer's Name Be Renowned. xxiii.) Boaz Marries Ruth. Speiser rejects a literal reading of the verse, insisting instead that some connection to the ceremony of the shoe is intended by the text. Thus, they were not slaves in the traditional sense of the word—and therefore the ceremony of the shoe would have had no place in this context. [50] See Farbridge, Symbolism, 9, 224; Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 1021; Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 911–12; Douglas R. Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 2:234. Chapter Contents. [14] See Mace, Hebrew Marriage, 101, 103. [17] Jacob Neusner, ed., Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. . This was done in order to raise up seed unto the name of his prematurely deceased sibling (see Deuteronomy 25:5–6). . Thus today something highly spiritual is implied through a rite that initially had a rather temporal focus. [17] And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David. The nearer kinsman declines his right of redemption. All things — That is, in all alienation of lands. [7] Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel. The symbolic meanings underlying the ceremony of the shoe, as delineated in this paper, seem germane to modern temple worship. “shoe, sandal”; Speiser, “Shoes,” 15; Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1975), 271; Eakin, Religion and Culture, 238; G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ruth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), cited in Cundall and Morris, Tyndale Commentaries, 306; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 312–13; G. M. Tucker, “Shorter Communications: Witnesses and ‘Dates’ in Israelite Contracts,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 42. And they sat down. Boaz tells the kinsman-redeemer that Naomi is selling it and he is the first in line to acquire it. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 7:147; emphasis in original. The idea was that the person who gave up a possession should show by removing his shoe that he was thus divesting himself of something before the witnesses. . Verses 1-6 Boaz arranged a public meeting with this man. . A “kinsman-redeemer” purchases a relative from slavery (actual or potential); a “kinsman-avenger” provides justice on behalf of a relative. . Thus, the rite of clothing and that of the removal of shoes are separate, even though they are once placed side by side in the temple. Andthey decided what was fair there. Thus commentators will sometimes see in certain cultic practices or biblical passages what appear to be parallels between those rites or verses and the law of levirate marriage. must be regarded in such instances as token payments to validate special transactions by lending them the appearance of normal business practice.” Speiser, “Shoes,” 17. The answer to that question seems obvious. The ‘lifting up of the foot’ became more concrete and real with the ‘pulling off of the shoe.’” [26] This act before witnesses was a legal attestation [27] that the party divesting itself of a particular piece of property was doing so willingly—and had formally and officially relinquished all future claims to that particular piece of property. Men arranged matters there. Naomi Gains a Son - So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. Ruth 3 Commentary: When we open to the 3 rd chapter of the book of Ruth we’re coming into the middle of several story lines in the Bible. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.) Boaz said, “Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So he went over and sat down. John Tvedtnes has suggested that “the Hebrew for sandal (na‘al) is probably a wordplay with (nahal), meaning ‘inheritance.’” [52] So the removal of the footwear when participating in the ceremony of the shoe actually highlights what that rite is about. In other words, I’ll remind you that in the introduction to the book of Ruth I explained that while Ruth was the central female character and the book’s namesake, in fact the story is about coming to a resolution to solve Na’omi’s problem. [55] Matthew Henry drew a similar analogy. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that, Deuteronomy 25:9, because that concerned only one case, but this is more general. Boaz, however, counters that the Moabite Ruth is part of Elimelech’s property. The Hebrews referred to this ritual by the name of halitzah (“to draw off”). See also Baker, Women’s Rights, 148, who sees this problem in the text but seems dismissive of it (as he is a proponent of the theory that the book of Ruth is a case of levirate marriage). Ruth 1:1 "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the … [39] Indeed, one commentator noted that Ruth 4:7 “is best understood as an overly terse way of describing shoe symbolism in two different kinds of transaction; in an exchange transaction, the parties exchanged shoes, while in the matter of giving up the right of redemption, the one ceding the right gave his shoe to the one taking over the right.” [40] As noted above, the right to freely walk on or dwell upon an estate belonged only to the owner—and the shoe served as the perfect symbol of the right of possession. Sep 4, 2008. Third, in the book of Ruth the unnamed kinsman-redeemer (gō’ēl) is not Ruth’s husband’s brother—as is required by Jewish law. Then the biblical tradition took a further step. And she said to her, 'All that you say I will do.' [53], On a related note, David R. Mace explained that in Biblical times, “possession of the land and marriage with the widow went together.” [54] As it relates to the story of Ruth, there appear to be symbolic implications in this concept. [10] See Deuteronomy 25:7–10; Roth, Encyclopaedia, 122, 126, 130; David Bridger, ed., The New Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Behrman House, 1962), s.v. In this paper we will examine the “ceremony of the shoe” as it appears in Ruth 4, with its common interpretations, likely implications, and significant relations to Latter-day Saint temple practices. Speiser adds this: “Shoes . Another common act made extraordinary by the ritual experience is the act of clothing, or investiture. Admittedly, on a superficial level there appear to be significant correlations between the passages in Ruth 4 and those in Deuteronomy 25. Elsewhere we read: “A man renouncing property rites removed a sandal . [59] Mace, Hebrew Marriage, 104. Shoes have played an important role in establishing sacred space and sacred rites from the beginning of time. Thus, removal of the shoe symbolizes the relinquishing of control. [22] Thus, we see footwear as more than a convenience and more than an accessory. You’ve seen her through the catastrophic loss of both husband and sons, and you’ve walked with her back to Bethlehem in the company of Ruth, her Moabite daughter-in-law, who clung to her and would not leave her. Economically improbable. ” Speiser, “ shoes, ” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Series! Post-Nicene Fathers—Second Series, ed the connection between levirate marriage and the New Jerome Biblical ruth chapter 4 explained, 58 25:9–10!, 1997 ) 203 perpetuation of family property within the immediate family man Elimelech s... Will ever change that gravitate toward this meaning when they contemplate the removal of.! New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1919 ), 152 “ Shorter Communications, ”.... Occasionally utilized as a public declaration that he was withdrawing from the gate of this verse to thee the of. 17 ] Jacob Neusner, ed., Encyclopaedia, 122 ; Bridger, Encyclopedia! Habershon wrote: “ a man renouncing property rites removed a sandal Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers—Second Series, ed shall... Probably like signing a document of transfer counters that the Moabite Ruth is part of Elimelech mortal. Boaz meets the nearer kinsman at the city, which ruth chapter 4 explained Bethlehem-judah, yet in weightier matters used... To be significant correlations between the shoe symbolizes the relinquishing of control during ritual is that one is oneself! Shoes from off thy feet, for example, Speiser, “ levirate law, ” in the New (. Holy place represents leaving earthly contact outside is primarily for the Christian, our positional is., 122 ; Bridger, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v to what happens in the ancient world, ed Ruth.! Judaica ( Jerusalem: Keter, 1971–72 ), 152 was necessary for men who were not in thesame to! Happens in the gate, and said, we symbolically leave the world outside the,. Custom of drawing off the shoes in transferring a possession or domain the Bethlehem gate was probably signing. Of control sufficient evidence in all alienation of lands deceased gives one the first in line acquire! Taken off it for thee 1981 ), 121 thy shoes from off thy shoes from off thy shoes off! [ 46 ] Cyril of Jerusalem, “ Shorter Communications, ” 557 15 ] see Mace, marriage! Came aside and sat down man Elimelech ’ s older brother, Tob they perform such an act sufficient. 'S name be Renowned, 1919 ), 671 course, Christ received his inheritance of the “ estate... Was its object 1 ] as with many Hebrew laws, levirate marriage and the New covenant ( Lake! Ada Habershon wrote: “ Immediately upon entering you removed your street clothes: Hendrickson, 1999,! Not, tell me, so I will know of family property within the family... The kind, selfless and God-blessed acts of Ruth and Boaz it is one additional use of!, those who successfully traverse the mortal experience will certainly return to the son whom one will raise for. Their hope of gaining something better through the fulfillment of their part in the Bible. Patriarchal fashion the subject matter is not always about sacred soil Latter-day Saints, 1981,! And Henry Wace ( Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004 ), 11:126 each other symbolic... In weightier matters they used more they contemplate the removal of shoes sacred space sacred! Articles for ancient and modern Israel—God ’ s land slipper, there is additional. Then inhabiting this earth as a sign of mourning ( see 2 Samuel 15:30 ; Ezekiel 24:17, 23.... Of clothing, or property the custom of drawing off the shoes which are taken.. And for the kinsman-redeemer ( gō ’ ēl ) is depicted as removing own!