Lesson Study # 7 - Boaz and Ruth: Firm FOUNDATIONS

Here is the link to the study material for this week's topic:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/07c/less07.html

The book of Ruth is one of very few books of the Bible written by a Gentile, a Moabite.

Isn't it interesting that the first solid or firm relationship in this quarter's study comes from a Gentile and not from a Jew.

Who wrote the book of Ruth?

In my study Bible, they say that it could have been Samuel, but the reality is that no one knows, at least that is what it says in the intro.
God Bless,
Will

Daryl, apparently, it has been thought by some that Samuel wrote the book of Ruth, or did a Moabite write the book?

Is there several thoughts on who wrote the book?

What is your source?

I actually assumed that Ruth wrote it, however, I now realize that she didn't write it.

I looked at the intro in my It Is Written Bible. Nobody seems to really know who wrote the book of Ruth, however, they seem to think it was written during the time of King David, perhaps by King David himself.

It would make since for David to write it as Ruth was one of his progenitors.

Matt 1:

"5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king."

Ruth 4:

" 17And 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.

18Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,

19And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,

20And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,

21And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,

22And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David."

What I don't understand is, wasn't there a law pertaining to the offspring from the union of an Israelite and a non-Israelite? Deuteronomy 23. Yet apparently, biologically, David's grandmother, Ruth (Moabite) as well as his great grandmother, Rachab (Canaanite?") were non-Israelite. So how does David get away with being king. And Solomon built the temple. Solomon had his share of foreign wives as did kings of both Judah and Israel.


And this is also the lineage of Jesus, being: 28 generations descended from David.

One other thing that I have noted is that the purpose of Boaz marrying Ruth; "And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.

10Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day."

Yet it is Boaz whose name is given in the genealogies. What happened to the raising up the name of Mahlon?

Today, Orthodox Judaism (whose norm is followed by the State of Israel) and Conservative Judaism adopt the matrilineal descent (the offspring is Jewish if the mother is Jewish), Reform Judaism the bilineal descent (the offspring is Jewish if either parent is Jewish), and some minor groups the patrilineal descent (the offspring is Jewish if the father is Jewish).
You can find a good analysis of the problem in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal

However, the evidence we have is that the original rule of Jewish descent was patrilineal.

“On one occasion the son of an Israelitish woman and of an Egyptian, one of the mixed multitude that had come up with Israel from Egypt, left his own part of the camp, and entering that of the Israelites, claimed the right to pitch his tent there. This the divine law forbade him to do, the descendants of an Egyptian being excluded from the congregation until the third generation. A dispute arose between him and an Israelite, and the matter being referred to the judges was decided against the offender.” {PP 407.4}

So, if just the mother was Jewish, the offspring was not considered Jewish.

But on the other hand, as you said, we have the example of many of the Israelite kings marrying foreign princesses. This did not prevent the children of these marriages from succeeding to the throne, as was the case of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon by the Ammonite princess Naamah. Another example is the Book of Ruth, which claims such ancestry for King David himself. We also have the example of Joseph, who marries an Egyptian woman and the children, Ephraim and Menashe, are Jewish. For this to have happened, it means that if just the father was Jewish, the offspring was considered Jewish.

As to your last question, I also don't know what happened to the raising up of the name of Mahlon.

The main application of the lesson for us today:

"Of Christ's relation to His people, there is a beautiful illustration in the laws given to Israel. When through poverty a Hebrew had been forced to part with his patrimony, and to sell himself as a bondservant, the duty of redeeming him and his inheritance fell to the one who was nearest of kin. See Lev. 25:25, 47-49; Ruth 2:20. So the work of redeeming us and our inheritance, lost through sin, fell upon Him who is 'near of kin' unto us. It was to redeem us that He became our kinsman. Closer than father, mother, brother, friend, or lover is the Lord our Saviour. 'Fear not,' He says, 'for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.' 'Since thou wast precious in My sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.' Isa. 43:1, 4." {DA 327.3}