Ruth 1: 4 Commentary

Naomi continues to live with her 2 sons
a. And their wives for 10 more years in Moab
b. Putting Ruth around the 25-35 year old range
2. I can hear the ‘doctrinal perfectionists‘ squawking:
a. “Well, this isn‘t God‘s PERFECT will
b. With Hebrews marrying Moabites
c. But He will make it all work out
d. In SPITE of their being
e. Out of God‘s will! tsk, tsk”
3. But remember the subject of Ruth:
a. Naomi‘s redemption demonstrating the faithfulness of God
b. A Gentile‘s (Ruth) redemption and inclusion in the line of Christ
c. Boaz the faithful ‘kinsman-redeemer‘ picturing Jesus
4. None of this would have occurred
a. And we would not have seen
b. This picture of God‘s redemptive power
c. As well as His wonderful grace and mercy
d. Demonstrated in Jesus as OUR kinsman-redeemer
e. (Perhaps to the delight of the ‘perfectionists‘)
f. If Elimelech had stayed in Israel
g. And his sons had married nice Hebrew girls
5. Abraham, for example, did NOT want a Canaanite wife for Isaac
a. So he made his servant swear that he would NOT take a wife from the
daughters of the Canaanites but from Abraham’s country and family (Gen 24:1-4)
6. But regarding Hebrews marrying Moabites
a. Marriage between Jew and Moabite was NOT technically forbidden
i. In the list of nations, Moab and Ammon are not mentioned (Deut 7:1-3)
ii. It was later forbidden by civil law (Ezra 9:1-2, Neh 13:23-25)
b. Restriction on marriage seems to have fallen
i. On the Moabite MALES only (Deut 23:3-4)
ii. Trying to marry Hebrew women
iii. Because Moabite women were not guilty
iv. Of inhospitality because it would have
v. Been socially improper for them to go out
vi. To meet the Israelites giving them bread and water
7. Christians however are forbidden to marry unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14)

By Tractorman (wrote 2560 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/29/2011 13:47 pm

For those who see the Book of Ruth as a fiction, we encounter two more names that may be descriptive into the story. Part of the picture also has to hang on whether the names are their Moab-given names or Israeli appropriate names. Tales are common of Europeans arriving in the United States being renamed at the immigration desk because it was convenient for the government clerks. Similarly, an alien or otherwise meaningless name might get changed when telling of Moab in Israel. Not knowing otherwise, we proceed with what we do know and hope we are close. In that same fashion, the minimalist will find excuse to use the names of Naomi’s two daughters-in-law as telling part of the story, chosen for some effect.

The two sons of Naomi each took a wife while they were in Moab. One was Orpah, which is either the nape of the neck, a horse’s mane (hair), or simply a great head of hair. Considering that she would have been named at birth or shortly afterward, Orpah either was not a bald-headed baby or the name was some sort of mockery. It is possible that she was simply child, as in girl child, and did not merit a name until some attribute were recognized later.

Ruth, similarly, was given an interesting name. Assuming it actually represents what her parents named her Ruth was essentially given a blessing of very high hopes. Her name, rab, is also used as an expression of great numbers or strength through numbers elsewhere in the Old Testament. In what Israel calls the Prophets, and Christian circles call the History books, rab is merely abundant or many (see 1 Samuel 2:5 as one of numerous uses).

There is also the aspect of chronology. The Scriptures are famous and famously frustrating for the handling of time. This is one of the precious few places where anything specific is provided for time: ten years. With the minimalist treatment of Ruth as fiction, it because a distraction. The maximalist sees the ten years as yet another clue that we are speaking of distinct and discrete events that are founded upon fact, not fiction.

By Larry Swinford (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/20/2009 20:18 pm