There is a great significance to be found it the manner and statement of the blessing of the community of Ruth, Boaz and Naomi in their recorded reaction and statements concerning the child Obed. First they tend to confirm that Obed was considered to be of the house and therefore the heir of Mahlon, Elimelech and Naomi in the facts of the record and the statements so recorded.

¶ So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son. And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman [posterity], that his [Obed's] name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him. And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it. And 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. ~ Ruth 4:13-17

In all likelihood, Ruth bore more children by Boaz after the birth of the first son who was named Obed. But only Obed is mentioned and given any real significance in the genealogies of Israel. Obed is likely a short form of the name Obadiah, meaning 'Servant of the Lord', while Obed is only given to mean 'Servant'. In either case, the name foreshadows the great 'Servant of All' the 'Servant of God the Father and all mankind', the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Thus in the formal naming of the first son of Ruth, he was given one of the names which would be understood to be one of the names of God, the Messiah, the Servant of God the Father, the Servant of the LORD.

The Law of Moses, as explained in Deuteronomy chapter 25, stipulates that the 'firstborn' of such a redeeming marriage as Ruth to Boaz, 'should succeed in the name of his brother which is dead' (Deuteronomy 25:6). This meant that Obed, the firstborn son of Ruth by the 'surrogate' father Boaz, was legally and lawfully the son and seed of Mahlon who was dead, that 'his name be not put out of Israel' (Deuteronomy 25:6). Boaz understood this very well and stated as much as such when he explained the issue to Ploni Almoni (Ruth 4:5 & 10) when he referred to Ruth as 'the wife of the dead' and that the purpose of the marriage was to 'raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance' (Ruth 4:5) and 'that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethern'. Thus the women knew well whereof they spoke when they stated that Obed was 'a son born to Naomi', Naomi being the only living representative of the house of Elimelech her husband and Mahlon her son other than her daughter-in-law Ruth.

Perhaps the towns people and the family of Elimelech and his eldest son Mahlon were aware of 'family blessings' of the promises of the covenant to Joseph. Perhaps not. But certainly the descendant of this line would indeed be 'famous in Israel'. And most certainly he would be 'a restorer of life' (remember the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would bring about the resurrection of the dead, thus he was literally 'a restorer of life'). And when it says that Naomi 'was nurse unto him,' it means that she raised him up in her household, the household of Elimelech and Mahlon, as her own posterity, her own son, a son of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon. And it was the lands of Elimelech and Mahlon which Obed inherited and which were passed on to Jesse the father of David.

Now why we don't have a clearly stated ancestry of Elimelech back to his father in Israel certainly is an enigma. If Obed was raised up as the seed of the dead Mahlon and the house of Elimelech to succeed in the name of Mahlon who was dead that his name be not put out of Israel, then why didn't the 'compiling Jews' of the Old Testament set forth the ancestry of Mahlon and Elimelech as well as of Boaz? Of course from the perspective of the later Jews of the Babylonian captivity (Ezekiel etal., some 500+ years before Chirst and hundreds of years since the time of Ruth), the only remaining tribe of Israel were the Jews. Thus for whatever reasons, only the Jewish perspective of the 'bloodline' lineage of Obed, Jesse and David was published. And the legal and rightful lineage Obed, etal., according to the Law of God was ignored and left out, presumably intentionally. This doesn't speak well of fulfilling the letter of the law that the name of the dead not be put out of Israel. But it seems as though it were as was stated in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2. And that is that 'Judah had prevailed above his brethren, particularly Ephraim who was Israel and the seed of Joseph, and though the 'birthright' was Joseph's, the genealogy was NOT to be reckoned after the birthright according to the perspective of the Stick of Judah which the Bible record is. And it does appear that that particularly pointed statement does apply directly well to the recorded and stated ancestry and genealogy of Obed, Jesse, David and so forth unto the Messiah. The Jews do claim him theirs, though they murdered and crucified him when he did come.

Now we turn to the community's blessing upon the marriage of Ruth and Boaz. There seems to be the standard type of parallel thought which Jewish scripture is famous for. In referring to Ruth, they reference her and her potential offspring in terms of Rachel the mother of Joseph and of Leah, the mother of Judah, who 'both' did build the house of Israel in a manner similiar to that depicted by the two olive trees to the sides of the 'candlestick' [Menorah] in the vision of Zechariah chapter 4. Ephratah is that land associated with the burial place of Rachel the mother of Joseph and grandmother of Ephraim of the same name (both Ephratah and Ephraim being of the same origin and word meaning 'fruitful'). Now Joseph's seed of the promise through Ephraim was promised to be most fruitful and to be a multitude of nations in fulfilling the Covenant of Abraham. Further Behtlehem as Bethlehem-Judah would be in parallel to the city or land of Ephratah (Bethlehem-Ephratah).

"And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Beth-lehem: And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman." ~ Ruth 4:11-12

The ending may well have been for Boaz's benefit, as any children beyond the first son, who Obed was, would be of his own legal seed, much as was Judah's seed when he bore children via his son Er's wife Tamar. But if both the houses of Israel of Rachel through Joseph and Ephraim and Leah through Judah and Pharez were not considered in the minds of the people, why then did they so prominently mention Rachel and that house of Israel first? It is not conclusive alone by itself, but in concert with the whole picture at hand, quite revealing that such would be considered in such a blessing upon the house of Ruth and Boaz, Boaz being only of Judah son of Leah and not at all of Rachel. And here again, when it could have been 'well said' is such terms as also 'being like the house of Ephraim, by whom Aseneth bare unto Joseph . . .'. But it was not so stated from the Jewish perspective or perhaps even edited out per the position stated in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2.

And then there is the lingering question of whether Ephrath (Ephratah) and Bethlehem where actually one and the same place. Here there seems to be a Parallel of two houses of two places which would well suggest that, despite, other editing notes of the compilers of the Old Testament, that Ephrath is not the exact same place as Bethlehem. In fact it could suggest that 'Bethlehem' was more associated with Rachel and the tomb of Rachel as also the locally called Zelzah was within the more ancient historical borders of the tribe of Benjamin as recorded in 1 Samuel 10:2. And therefore that Ephrath historically was more associated with Leah and the near ancient borders of Judah which lay a short distance from the tomb of Rachel. Consider the following alternative 'translations' of the supposedly defining verse upon this matter in Genesis chapter 35.

"And Rachel died and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem." ~ Genesis 35:19

Now is Ehphrath being equated as being the same as Bethlehem or is 'in the way to Ephrath' being equated as the same as Bethlehem? If Bethlehem is not the same as Ephrath but merely located 'in the way to Ephrath', then much can be resolved. Remember that the site of Rachel's tomb and burial is located just on the out skirts of Bethlehem today. And this would explain why in 1 Samuel 10:2 it is written that the name of the place of Rachel's tomb was Zelzah anciently in the days when the borders of Benjamin still continued south beyond Jerusalem to include the city of Jerusalem and Zelzah at the location of Rachel's tomb. It also satisfies the notion that the tomb of Rachel would be in the lands held by the sons of Rachel and not one of the sons of Judah lived historically. It means that Bethlehem was a short distance from Ephrath and that perhaps after the near extinction of the tribe of Benjamin as recorded in Judges 19-21, the tribe of Judah assumed much of the lands of the tribe of Benjamin, especially upon King David's taking of the city of Jerusalem, which seems to reestablish Judah's borders to include those lands about Jerusalem and south which were more anciently the tribe of Benjamin's. David being associated more with his 'bloodline' ancestry than his 'legal and rightful' ancestry, seems to be more of a choice made by David himself as explained in items number 21 and 22. Remember, the compilation of the Old Testament records did not occur until after the days of Zedekiah, Ezekiel, the Babylonian captivity and the times of Lehi and Nephi of the Book of Mormon.

And yet, Joseph named his second son by that name of Ephrath made double as Ephraim. So either the case may be, either they are two places or that the more common Jewish name of Bethlehem is merely difining what is the same place as Ephratah.