Ruth-A Book for Our Time   And it was in the days of the judging of the judges... Ruth 1:1   How remarkable that in our time, in our country, we are on the brink of judicial change.  Most likely, two of the Supreme Court justices will be replaced, while at the same time, recent rulings by that body have caused many to question whether the institution has overstepped its original purpose.  We see many articles discussing pro-active judges who have gone from interpreting law to making law.   Elsewhere in the world, we are surrounded by judicial issues.  Trials of international leaders, trials of terrorists, trials of movie stars.  Legal ownership of land, of ideas, of children.  These problems consume the consciousness of this generation.   So perhaps we are in the days when the judges are judging.  The Older Covenant gives a succinct picture of this time in Israel’s history.  The people are continually turning to idols and wickedness.  Despite Moses’ warning in Deuteronomy 12:8,  “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6, 21:25)  We are told that there was no king in Israel (Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25)  Indeed, the world has nowhere to turn for ultimate authority.  We do not recognize YHWH as King.  People seek justice, but it is man’s concept of justice, no longer G-d’s.   The more traditional translation of this verse is ‘when the judges ruled’ or ‘judged’, but the Hebrew leaves it open to another understanding, which is that the people judged the judges because of their unrighteousness.  This is a deplorable circumstance and we are commanded not to revile the judges (Ex 22:28/27).  The rabbis tie this verse to the one following (Do not delay in tithing) and make the inference that if the people revile the judges, there will be a poor crop and therefore nothing to tithe.   The story of Ruth is the story of the gentile who joins Israel.  It is the story read at Shavu’ot, the festival of weeks, the time when the forefathers received the tablets at Mount Sinai, having seen the voice of YHWH, and the time when YHWH visited His people again in the first century with the deposit of the Holy Spirit, a confirmation and expansion of His relationship with His children.  At Sinai, all who were there, Israelite and mixed rabble, were required to see themselves as converts.  The experience at Pentecost is what paved the way for the opening of the ‘way’ to gentile converts.   There was a famine in the land...(Ruth 1:1)   A famine in the land is a recurring theme for the forefathers.  Both Abraham and Isaac experienced the famine.  Jacob and his twelve sons also felt the effects of the lack of bread.  Likewise, Amos promises another famine, the famine of the future: “Behold the days are coming says the Lord YHWH and I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread nor of thirst for water, but of hearing the words of YHWH.  And they will wander from sea to sea, from the north to the east, and they will run back and forth to seek a word of YHWH and they will not find it.” (Amos 8:11-12)  Interestingly, there is little reading of the Older Covenant in many churches these days, and even less understanding of it.   And a man from Beth-Lekhem Yehuda...Ruth 1:1   Bethlehem of Judea is the prophesied birthplace for Messiah.   Went to reside in the fields of Mo’av, he and his wife and his two sons...Ruth 1:1   Mo’av was the son of Lot by his older daughter.  His descendants, the Moabites, were the people who seduced Israel after Balaam’s failure to curse them (Num 25:1), whose people are eventually to be conquered by the people of the east (Ez 25:8), whose land in the end times will be reclaimed by Israel because their people have insulted and mocked YHWH’s people (Num 24:17, Zeph 2:9). The Moabites were filled with dread because of the Israelites and tried to get Balaam to curse them (Num 22:4).  Initially their land is given to Lot (Deut 2:9).  They became subject to David and brought tribute (II Sam 8:2), Jeremiah prophesies their eventual destruction (Jer 48).  Moabite descendants may not enter the assembly of the Lord even down to the tenth generation and Israelites are not to seek their peace or good (do not make a treaty with them) (Deut 23:3,6). Moav is considered  a stingy people because of verse Deut 23:4-5.   And the name of the man is Elimelekh…Ruth 1:2   This name means my G-d is king, or I deserve to be king.  Being from the line of David, it is possible that it was his right to be king.   And the name of his wife Naomi...Ruth 1:2   Which means pleasant   And the name of his two sons Makhlon and Kilion...Ruth 1:2   Meaning ‘sickness’ and ‘failure’ or ‘falling away’ as if being consumed.   Efratites of Beit Lekhem Yehuda…Ruth 1:2   Efrat is an old name for Beit Lekhem.  This is to distinguish it from  another Bethlehem in Zebulon.   And they came to the fields of Mo’av and they stayed there.  And Elimelekh, husband of Naomi, died, and she remained and her two sons.  And they married for themselves Moabite women, the first name Orfa and the second name Root (Hebrew pronunciation of her name). ...Ruth 1:2-4   Orpah means ‘neck’, carrying one of two ideas: 1) she turned her back/neck on Israel/G-d or 2) she is stiff-necked/stubborn.  Ruth means ‘friend’.   …and they resided there about ten years.  And also the two of them died, Makhlon and Kilion and the woman remained after her two sons and her husband…Ruth 1:4-5   Two well-meaning people left their homes to make a ‘better’ life in a foreign country, a place about which they had been previously warned.  Their children are already destined for destruction before they move.  We see that the sons do not marry before their father dies. Probably he has forbidden them to make such a covenant with these people.  Undoubtedly as a righteous man (indicated by his name), he knew the story of the seduction of the Israelites by the Moabite women in Numbers 24.  After about 10 years of fruitless marriage, both sons die.   And she arose [Naomi] and her daughters-in-law and (she) returned from the fields of Moab for (she) heard in the fields of Moab that YHWH visited His people to give to them bread…Ruth 1:6   The word for return in the same root as to repent.  For a Hebrew, it is always considered a sin to be away from the land of Israel.  Some teach that this is the very reason that Elimelekh died, because he abandoned the land.   And she went out from the place where she was and her two daughters-in-law with her and they went on the road to return to the land of Yehudah.  And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go and return, each woman to the house of her mother.and YHWH deal kindly with you as you have done with the dead and with me.” Ruth 1:7-8   The word translated ‘kindly’ is ‘khesed’ in the Hebrew (Strongs 2617, variously translated as favor, lovingkindness, mercy, love, pity).  It is a unique concept, one of YHWH’s qualities (Exodus 34:6) and sometimes attributed to men.  Here the rabbis say it is to be attributed to the daughters-in-law for several possible reasons 1) providing burial shrouds for their husbands and/or 2) not asking for their dowries back from Naomi and/or 3) showing respect for the dead by not remarrying and/or 4) caring for Naomi after the death of her husband.   “And YWHW will give to you and you will find rest each woman in the house of her husband”, and she kissed them and they lifted their voices and wept.  And they said to her, “But with you we will return to your people.”  And Naomi said, “Return my daughters.  Why will you go with me?  Do I still have sons in my loins that will be to you as husbands?”…Ruth 1:9-11   Here is a reference to levirate marriage (Genesis 38:26, Deuteronomy 25:5).  In fact, we will see that the child born to Ruth is said to belong to Naomi, as if it were hers.   “Return my daughters, go, because I am too old to be with a man.  As I have said, ‘Do I have hope?  Even if I were with a man tonight and I gave birth to sons, would you wait for them until they are grown, would you refrain from having husbands, no my daughters, for I am very bitter from you(r situation) because the hand of YHWH has gone out against me.”…Ruth 1:12-13   The story is quite well known to us.  YHWH has visited Israel with favor and the famine is over.  Naomi decides to return home and encourages her daughters-in-law to go home to the natural mothers’ houses and to seek remarriage with men of their own nation.  At first, both women refuse, but then Orpah, the stiff-necked one, relents and goes home.  Ruth, the friend, however, will not leave Naomi’s side and stays with her.  The rabbis assume that both women would have already been converted to Judaism and would have been practicing YHWH’s teaching and instruction.  The ‘pleasant’ Naomi has taught them both the beauty of holiness, yet only one has understood it.  This one clings to her mother-in-law, the same way that YHWH ordains that a man should cling to his wife in Genesis 1:24.  Ruth accepts first the road of Naomi, then her home, then her people, then her G-d.  She provides the picture of Yeshua’s teaching in Luke 14, having left everything of her old life behind in order to follow the one true G-d.   For the first time in modern history, the one true faith is faced with a generation of Ruths, a generation of gentiles who, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, long to join with the Jewish brethren and serve YHWH.  While we know that the Father has always preserved a remnant of believers, the historical record of the last 1700 years has shown only the thrust of evangelizing the Jews and the fruit of the Jews receiving Yeshua as Messiah, whether by will or by force.  In a sudden reversal in this generation, we  see gentile believers adopting Torah, frequently at the expense of their reputations in the churches out of which they are coming.  They, like Ruth, often must leave their people, their traditions, their families and their national identity behind in order to follow the One True G-d.   The general rabbinical interpretation of the death of Elimelekh is his abandonment of the land.  To the Jew, being in galut (in exile, out of the land of Israel) is repugnant.  There are many commandments of Torah which cannot be fulfilled unless we are in the land.  It is the place of G-d’s presence, the home which He promised.   The death of the sons is credited to their having married foreign women.  When it says they took ‘to themselves’ these women, it is interpreted to mean that their mother also was against the marriage.  We see many times in Tanakh that marriage to foreign wives leads to trouble.  Notice also that the marriages in this story are without offspring;  likewise, our relationship with the world is fruitless.  We must be tied to G-d and the believing community.  The Jews of history have consistently been guilty of assimilation, of blending into the local culture.  This is clearly against Torah and some have been so bold to suggest that the holocaust of World War II was permitted by YHWH’s hand because of this assimilation.  How similar to the modern American church with its seeker sensitive services.  Current so-called Christian music is barely distinguishable from secular music.  Christian movies are R-rated, or just plain bad.  The church makes many converts, but few disciples.  Is it also destined for death?   The two daughers-in-law reflect two attitudes among converts.  The Ruths have learned the beauty of holiness; they live in a way that is set apart from the world, in a way that the world will see that they are ‘different’.  The Orpahs are comfortable with their old gods, their old traditions, their life in the world.  They do not have the concept of leaving behind everything to follow Messiah Yeshua and his Torah.  They will eventually slip back to their old way of life in the world.  Currently we are beginning to witness a split in the churches over the support of Israel.  This dichotomy in attitude parallels the abandonment of strict Biblical morality in some denominations.  Eventually, these issues, and specifically the issue of support of Israel, will bring about an irreparable rift in the church.   Naomi returns to the land.  It is interesting that ‘return’ and ‘repent’ are the same in Hebrew.  At the good-bye scene, she tells the daughters-in-law three times to return to their mothers’ homes that they may remarry.  Three is the required number of discouragements to be given to a gentile who wants to convert to Judaism.  Since the beginning of the 1900’s, Jews from around the world have made ‘aliyah’, i.e., immigrated to the homeland.  These numbers especially increased with the founding of the state in 1948.  Now in our days, we are beginning to see  waves both of  so-called Christian Zionists and of those who believe they are descended from the lost tribes also wanting to immigrate to Israel.  Ultimately, both these groups are gentiles.   Once in the land, Ruth seeks to provide for her mother-in-law.  This is noted as ‘khesed’, often translated as ‘kindness’ or ‘mercy’.  Having been taught in the laws Torah, she knows it is her right to glean and winds up in the fields of Boaz, Elimelekh’s near kinsmen.  He represents the kinsman redeemer (Lev. 25:25) we have in Yeshua, who redeems us from sin.  Boaz’s name means ‘in strength’, a name he shares with the left pillar of Solomon’s temple.  The rabbis teach that Boaz was the judge of his time, and connect him to Ibzan (Judges). As prophesied in Isaiah (49:22), we are now seeing Gentiles carrying Israel home.  There is an unprecedented movement among gentile believers supporting the land of Israel and her people.  It is so great that many rabbis are beginning to take notice and give blessing to offers of aid.  Their enthusiasm replaces a prior circumspect suspicion.   There is an unnamed character in the story, the “young man who is set over the harvesters.”  He is sometimes referred to as a ‘servant’ or a ‘foreman’.  He is the one to whom Boaz addresses the question, “Whose maiden is this?”  At first glance, it is not surprising that a servant would go unnamed in this account.  However, there is another servant in a previous account who, although he has a name, goes unnamed in one crucial story.  That servant is Eliezer, the steward of Abraham’s household.  Although we are clearly told his name in Genesis 15, he goes unnamed in Genesis 24.  The name Eliezer means ‘the Lord is my help’ and in the latter chapter, he is responsible for finding a bride for Isaac.  How interesting that the unnamed character in the Ruth account is responsible for introducing Boaz to his bride to be.  How similar to Yeshua’s description of our ‘helper,’ the Holy Spirit as described in John 16:13-14.   When Ruth returns to Naomi after a productive day, Naomi inquires about where Ruth gleaned.  She gives the name of the man, Boaz.  Naomi immediately recognizes the name of her kinsman redeemer.  Would that modern Israel would recognize the name of her kinsman redeemer when spoken of by gentiles who have received His kindness and generosity in their lives!   A widow in Israel is not allowed to remarry for three months.  This is to insure that any child conceived immediately belongs to the new husband and not the deceased.  After this amount of time (the time between the middle of the barley harvest when they arrive in Beit Lekhem and the end of the wheat harvest), Naomi gives Ruth instructions on how to initiate their redemption.  During the threshing of the wheat, she is to go down to the threshing floor.  She is to wait until he is finished eating and drinking and he has lain down to sleep.  She is to uncover his feet and lie by them.  She is to formally request his covering, which he grants her.  This is a very complex situation because marriages to Moabites are specifically forbidden.  Perhaps, if Boaz was a judge, he had the right to make the ruling that the marriage was to be permitted.  Her G-dly behaviour within the bounds of Torah perhaps convinced him that she was a true convert.  In retrospect, the rabbis have ordained that the Torah scripture against such marriages means ‘moavi v’lo moavit’, that is, it pertains to marrying a male Moabite but not to a female.  In our time, this action might parallel the influx of gentiles into Messianic congregations, accepting the leadership and covering of the Jew, the keeper of Torah.  This is not to say that gentiles in Messianic congregations are in any way second class citizens, but simply to reflect a change of authority in their lives away from the traditional church.  They accept Hebrew liturgy and a strong emphasis on the Older Covenant scriptures.   And Boaz went up to the gate and sat there; and behold, the kinsman passed by of whom Boaz had spoken.  And he said, ‘Turn aside, come sit here, so-and-so [literally ploni almoni], and he turned aside and sat…Ruth 4:1   Now we come to an interesting part of the story.  It turns out that Boaz is not the nearest kinsman eligible to redeem the land.  A character called by the rabbis ‘Ploni Almoni’ is the nearest kinsman.  Some believe that he was Elimelekh’s brother, while Boaz was merely his nephew.  The name Ploni Almoni comes from two words in the Hebrew.  The first is from the root ‘feleh’ (Strongs 6395) meaning ‘distinct’, ‘wonderful’ or ‘set apart’.  The second  comes from a root ‘alman’ (Strongs 488) meaning ‘forsaken’ in the sense of a widow.  Both roots carry the personal preposition meaning ‘my’ and some translations use the translation ‘my friend’ in the verse.  Other translations read ‘such a one’, or ‘such and such a one’.  The idea behind this name is anonymity, much as we might say “John Doe” in English.  The phrase appears in two other places in Tanakh, I Samuel 21:2 and II Kings 6:8, both of which are referring to locations which are to be kept secret.  The Septuagint translations of these three occurrences are enlightening.  In Ruth, the word krifie appears, meaning ‘hidden one’.  The suggestion is that the man’s name is withheld.  Indeed, the rabbis teach that the man was ignoble in turning down his duty of redemption and therefore did not merit having his name preserved in the script.   Who is this ‘secret person’, this Ploni Almoni, who turns down the first right of redemption.  In the story, he first agrees to buy the land.  But when Boaz challenges him that he must also marry Ruth, he refuses on the grounds that marrying her will harm his inheritance.  He is anxious for the land but not for the marriage.  The word he uses is ‘shokhet’ (Strongs 7843) which carries the concept of utter destruction.  For what reason would marrying Ruth utterly destroy his inheritance?   For one thing, Ruth is a Moabite and perhaps he disdains her for this reason.  His role in the marriage would be to raise up a son in the dead man’s name.  It is to this offspring that the land would later belong.  Perhaps he thinks it is a waste of money to buy something that will not belong to his immediate family in the future.  Presumably he has children by a previous wife and he fears that he will have to divide his own property with the potential newcomer.  Maybe he is afraid that his own name will be extinguished, in which case, his fears have already come upon him, as his name is obliterated from  the scripture.  In contrast, Boaz has no such concerns and suffers no ignominy either.  In fact, it is not the dead man’s name that is remembered, but rather Boaz’s own.   The attitude of this unknown man reminds us of that of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son, in his inability to share, in his inability to accept the repentance of the younger brother.  It is the same story: the gentile comes home to the father, and the Jew is unwilling to accept him.  Is this the heart of Ploni Almoni?  Does he find that when the gentile wants to join him under the Hebraic banner that it will ruin his own inheritance from the Father?  More likely, he, like the Jews of our time, will be faced with the truth of Messiah, the One who, by His spirit, encourages the younger brother to come home.  If normative Judaism continues to reject Messiah despite the evidence of gentiles returning to Torah obedience, it will indeed lose its inheritance.  Likewise, Ploni Almoni looks Boaz, the kinsman redeemer, in the face and rejects the offer because it is not in his perceived interests.   What about the hints of his secret identity?  Perhaps he represents another as yet unknown person in history, the anti-Messiah.  If in fact the anti-Messiah comes out of some one world religion church, and many are deceived into joining him, what will be his reaction to the gentile believers who hold fast to the one true faith, who have the name of Yeshua and keep the commandments of Torah?  His offer of salvation to the world is only smoke and mirrors; salvation is not his to give.  Only in Boaz, ‘in strength’, Yeshua, who is willing to redeem all who come to Him, can salvation be found.  Ploni Almoni is our kinsman of the flesh, but Boaz is our kinsmen of the Spirit.  Only Yeshua is willing to redeem both gentile and Jew.  He gave His life for the sins of the whole world.  The  immediate fruit of Boaz and Ruth is King David and its ultimate fruit is the One who will sit on David’s throne forever.  The current fruit of the ‘Ruth’ generation is strong support for the state of Israel, Jews everywhere, and the witness of Messiah in Israel’s midst.  May He come soon.