Thursday, September 11, 2008

Ruth chapter 3

vs 10

So Boaz must be a fair way older than Ruth. I don't know what that sort of age would be for their culture, but it could be quite marked, considering a typical age difference at first marriage could be 10 years. We'll never know, because God didn't see fit to put copies of their driver's licences in the Bible.

I don't know about you, but calling the woman I'm about to marry "daughter" just seems creepy. Obviously it is some term of endearment, but still. I guess when someone says, "Hey baby, let's groove" if you take it literally it is also quite disturbing.

[edit] The word for kindness, hesed, is a very important word in Ruth. It is all about covenant faithfulness - and so Boaz is not necessarily talking about Ruth's kindness to him, but to Naomi.

vs 11

My town? Is he perhaps an elder? It has been suggested from the suggestion of his wealth and importance in chapter 2. Or is he just speaking in an adoptive sense, could be.

In the indeterminable time that Ruth and Naomi have been in Bethlehem, Ruth has shown herself to the general populace to be a woman of noble character. That is good for Ruth, because it means respect, but it also is good for Boaz, because it means people won't frown on him marrying her.

vs 12

It's the... thing! I don't know what you call it in movie terms, but it's the classic part of the movie where some dramatic tension enters and leaves you guessing about the ending! Perhaps if we thought about God being slow to answer prayers as him giving us dramatic tension, we would feel better about it.

No, probably not.

vs 13

Boaz wants to take all the right steps. No point promising to marry the gel when some other guy could come along and take her from him. But also, following the proper protocol is good, because God set it down. Boaz thinks that if the closer redeemer wants to redeem, then that is a good thing. [edit] So when we say "do the right thing", that doesn't mean some bumping uglies wasn't in offer - all it means is that Boaz wants to give the other guy first refusal.

So, here then is a question for you - why, if there was a closer kinsman, didn't Naomi send Ruth straight to him to ask him to redeem her and the land of Elimelech? And don't say that it wasn't the done thing, because Ruth just spent the night sleeping at the feet of Boaz. [edit] There is the suggestion that Naomi just didn't know, or perhaps that she saw Ruth's working in his fields as a sign from God.

vs 14

This is the verse that really suggests that what Ruth did (what Naomi told Ruth to do) was a little shameful. Why were women banned from the threshing floor? Who can say. Whatever the case may be, Boaz is quick to protect Naomi's nobleness of character and whoosh her off before anyone sees her.

vs 15

Whoever went back to town, (although from the (T)NIV note it sounds like the majority of texts say 'he', but the KJV which is supposedly based on the majority text, says 'she'?), Boaz is being even more generous to Ruth by giving her this grain. [edit] The Masoretic text says "he", but the qere says "she", and apparently pretty much every other non-Hebrew source says "she". It's a commonly held mistake, and so that's why even the KJV says "She". Why the TNIV would maintain the "he", then, is interesting.

At first, you might think of it as a bride price or something - but it's not, really, because for all he knows he won't even get to marry her. He is just repaying her, kindness for kindness. A measure of barley is an unknown quanitity - but you can carry 6 of them in a shawl.

vs 16

I imagine this was very much done in the way women nattering is done when there is some good news. [edit] The question is actually "Who are you, my daughter?" Someone in our class suggested that the question could be suggesting, "Who are you - are you now the husband of Boaz?" Interesting theory.

vs 17

He didn't actually say that according to the record we have! Is she lying? Oh no!

Or, perhaps Scripture doesn't provide us with a full script of what happens, just essential details, and as such some things get said that aren't recorded. And so now this is filled in - the purpose for Boaz' kindness is to also be kind to Naomi.

[edit] This is actually way more important than I first thought. The wording is almost word for word the same wording that was said way back in the beginning of the book, talking about Naomi coming back to Bethlehem empty. "Handed" is an english addition.

vs 18

What a tense ending! Naomi's advice is good advice - no point in Ruth getting all excited when nothing at all could happen from it. Better to wait and see the result, and then have your joy confirmed.

Besides, Boaz isn't going to let it stretch out for months - he's dealing with it in one day.

5 comments:

Nina May said...

The... thing you're looking for might be "dramatic conflict" - there are (apparently) four elements to story: setting, conflict, climax, resolution. Or maybe you were thinking more colloquially like a plot twist. Or maybe I should stop being an insufferable smartarse...

I don't know if you're asking some of these questions rhetorically or not, but I would suggest that Naomi didn't send Ruth to the closer Kinsman Redeemer because there was no way of knowing if the man was godly and at all inclined to honour his role as such. Boaz's actions have suggested to Naomi that he is. I commented in the Ruth 3:1-9 bit as well a little bit about this. It seems to me these decisions have mostly been made using combinations of pragmatism and integrity.

Not to pooh-pooh what you imagine female nattering to be like (vs 16), but I read this more as a reflection of the vital importance of the undertaking, as well as the fear of the danger of it. One, if Boaz wasn't all he was cracked up to be as a man of God - not out of the question - Ruth had been highly vulnerable to abuse; and secondly, if she'd been discovered by third parties, there was no guarentee they wouldn't accuse her of adultery (or whatever it's called when you sleep with a guy you're not married to - does the law distinguish?) and put her to death. Somehow I don't imagine that the popularity of stoning adulteresses would have died out even when everybody does what they like in the land - it's one of those things that keeps the men powerful and the women not so much. So... anyway, I read the question as a very urgent one, as well as a gossipy one.

And lastly, on that "my daughter" thing - I don't think it's so much an endearment as a statement of protection. Don't forget, he called her this in chapter 2, before there was any suggestion of romantic/marital connection - he was effectively declaring that he was taking her under his protection, both to her and to his workers (and thus, via gossip, to the whole town, one assumes). So I think this is just a reaffirmation that she remains in this function/relationship with him, regardless of what the next day brings - he will still protect her, and has her interests at heart. *swoon*

On that note, I've never liked the endearment "baby". But I quite like "honey". Not sure what that says about me. Or "svzrvy" is quite a cute one, too.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, I don't think there's any chance of that ever happening.

mwwba!

Nina May said...

Clearly not.

I take it from your brevity that you agreed with every single thing I said, asserted or implied. Excellent. We make progress.

swple!

Anonymous said...

Why wouldn't I? I don't think you said anything that pretty much hadn't already been said by one or the other of us.

Nina May said...

Oh.

... I thought logic didn't enter into the reasons for our friendly debates...?

:p