Ruth, Continued

Ruth includes an example of the practice of levirate marriage. In this type of marriage, if a man died, his brother, or next closest male relative was required to take her as wife (even if he was already married). The first male to be born from that union would be reckoned to be the son of the dead man, and would inherit the dead man's property.

If he didn't take her, there would be a ceremony whereby the widow would publicly take off his sandal, spit in his face, and say, "Thus shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house." His house would be called "the house of the man who had his shoe loosed." By the time of the Judges, this ceremony was no longer practiced, you you can see in chapter 4 of Ruth.

Another example of levirate "marriage" i in Genesis 38, when Judah failed to follow the law of levirate marriage for his daughter- in-law Tamar. She then posed as a prostitute, and tricked Judah into impregnating her. She was not punished. He was the guilty one for not providing for her as he should have. This is still introductory to Ruth. Stay tuned for Ruth.

Ruth

I have been teaching Ruth and have become more hooked than ever before. Next to Jesus, the story of Ruth is the most powerful account of redemption in the Bible. It makes very clear how redemption is to be applied in daily life.

This will be introductory. Boaz, as redeemer, embodied a Biblical worldview, and grace, and put everything on the line to fulfill his duty as next of kin, or kinsman-redeemer and to trust God with the results. He bought his deceased relative's property and took Ruth to be his wife in order to raise up an heir for the deceased man, not for himself. Isn't this how we, as Christians, should live?

The unnamed next-of-kin in chapter four, by contrast, declined to take Ruth as his wife for fear of ruining his own inheritance. What he meant was that he knew that if he married Ruth, a resulting male heir would inherit the deceased man's property. The children he already had would not gain anything from it.

This man revealed a purely secular outlook. He was interested only in economic gain. He had no thought that God might bless him for his obedience. He didn't seem to think, "Do God's laws really lead to economic ruin?" He thought only of what he might lose. Does this attitude sound contemporary to you? (A man was required by Biblcal Law to take his deceased brother's wife and raise up an heir for the deceased man). Stay tuned.