RUTH

The Jews in their scriptures have made of Ruth a 'poetic book' and a women's tale. Other arrangesments, including that of the King James Verson, places Ruth immediately after the Book of Judges as a part of the 'history' of Israel. In fact the content of Ruth is historic as it is about the time that Israel desired a king in place of the rule of the Judges of the Lord, the Lord being King (Elimelech). And in a very historical vein Ruth does set forth the ancestry of both the kings and also the coming Messiah, Jesus being a descendant of the House of David.

Ruth's Position in Scripture

The short book of Ruth was not always a separate short book. Historically it is considered to be a part of the Book of Judges. When it was separated from the Book of Judges is speculative but contextually the separtion likely first began when it was determined by certain Jewish editors that according to 1 Chronicles 5:1-2, the genealogy was NOT to be reckoned according to the birthright of Joseph but rather according to the fact that Judah only remained and thus considered to have prevailed above Judah's brethren in Israel, the Kingdom of Israel or Ephraim having been destoryed and scattered into all the nations of the earth. Thus Ruth 4:18-22 specifically added to the record the genealogy of the Messiah according to the bloodline of Boaz rather than the birthright in Joseph and Joseph's son Ephraim, which would have been that of the Ephraimite (Ephrathite)House of Elimelech and Mahlon as so stated in verses 16 and 17 that Obed was the son of Naomi, Naomi being the only living member of that House of Elimelech her husband and Mahlon her son.

Why Another Commentary?

 There are many Biblical commentaries written. Even a number of LDS commentaries upon the Book of Ruth have been published in various forms including those for Sunday School, Seminary, and Institude instruction by the Church's own publication system. Thus one asks, 'Why then another?' Why indeed? What more of value can be said?

The traditional commentaries range back to the early reformers and scholars of Christian HIstory and have become the theologicial stadards of learning and undertanding the Bible. And thence the 'traditional' perspectives of the 'Christian' view is born in its reformed mode. Prior and later various scholarly commentaries of the even more traditional perspective of the Roman Catholic Church are available. And then concerning the books of the Old Testament, there is the Jewish world of understanding from the various Jewish perspectives. But none of these have a 'true revelation receiving perspective of the true Chruch of God' and thus after the restoration of the Gospel, many LDS scholars have further added to the volumes of commentary upon the books of the Bible. So why one more?

Perhaps this can best be presented in understanding the underlying tendancy for various Christian perspectives to follow traditional Christian views independant of religious affiliation. While the Catholic perspective of God is three in one, that is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are but one Godly being, any number of people belonging to the Catholic Church may not have that personal understanding and perspective. They do what most of us do. They accept a common traditional Christian view. Now the 'traditional' or common perspective of Christianity is that God the Father is the God of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is His Son of the New Testament, and then there is the Holy Ghost variously presented. And many folks, regardless of their offical religious tenents of their formally prescribed faith, do tend to accept this more common understanding of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. That is the Old Testament God is God the Father and the New Testament Christ is that God's blessed and beloved Son and this is commonly accepted despite what is the truth of the matter.

As an often called Gospel Doctrine teacher and Priesthood instructor in the LDS Chruch, most every time a lesson on the Godhead is set out, invariably one has to 'reteach' the proper LDS Doctrine. And that is that Christ is the God of the Old Testament, even the same as Jehovah. And that it is Christ who is the God who speaks and appears to the prophets of the Old Testament as Jehovah. And further that it is Christ who is the creator, though that has a particular clarification of being under the direction of God the Father. And whenever God in the Old Testament speaks as though being God the Father, it is either Jehovah (Jesus Christ) or some other angel of God speaking by Divine Investiture and not God the Father himself. Many LDS members seem to know and understand this after having been taught it. Others, regardless of how long their membership continually seem to fall back into the 'common' traditional Christian understanding of God the Father of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ of the New Testament. This presents the concept of 'common Christian traditional beliefs' which perpetuate themselves out of commonly understood Christianity and not necessarily true Christianity. And I would have to imagine that most various sects of Christianity do experience it.

Now what is quite common and of a tenuous nature in the LDS Church and its literature, which goes almost entirely undetected, is when there is no set LDS tenent of the faith well established or pronouced upon a matter, and therefore whether the truth of it or not, the 'general common concensus of traditional Christianity' doth set in and become the set standard of LDS interpretation upon a matter. That is, not having any other perspective to claim upon a matter, LDS authors are prone to assume the general scholarly Christian traditional view of the matter at hand. And we often abopt these traditional Christian positions even against what may well be the more correct prescribed positions of the Jewish or Hebrew perspective without even considering that it might be a 'false Christian' traditional position we are adopting from the Christian Tradition set out by various Christian standards before the restoration of the gospel occurred. And thus in adopting the historical view of the Christian religions of the great appostasy, we may indeed be adopting that which is not actually fundamentally correct and true doctrine.

Two historically known false examples, which even the Catholics and other Christian religious would be foolish to support today, are the once held Christian Doctrinal concepts that (1) the Earth was flat and (2) the sun, planets and stars all revolved around the earth. Those obvious ones, which by today's standards of knowledge are easily seen as false. But how about the concept of a seven day heaven and earth creation and magically making something out of nothing? That was once and still is to some extent a 'traditional Christian doctrine.' Now the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, some latter-day scriptures and more correct 'Mormon Doctrinal' concepts help to correctly set out a number of the involved misgivings of the creation as held by traditional Christianity. We will not get into that here as it is not the topic at hand, yet if we were there are still questions of speculation which the old tradition does raise which even LDS scholars are not able to get passed in setting out the creation. And they would dispute among themselves. It is just the example which shows that we do rely on past 'traditioanal Christian' beliefs which have been held by any number of other faiths prior to the restoration. And these past held traditional Christian beliefs may or may not be the correct truth of the matter.

Now the Book of Ruth contains just such matters. And while this commentary like others will present some of the more common aspects of any such commentary, one of the underlying justifications for this commentary is that it will involve itself with a number of 'non-traditional' 'new perspective' matters. And they will divert from the scope of 'common traditional Christianity' and in some people's minds perhaps even from an LDS perspective. Yet in a very real LDS truth of the Gospel perspective, it will honestly attempt to free itself from the historically held Christian perspective to enable a more considered LDS view to be taken or at least be considered.

Christ's Ancestry

A prime example of one of these matters, which relates to the Book of Ruth, is the 'traditional Christian' manner of establishing Christ as the one and only Messiah and Savior of the world. Traditional Christianity uses questionable logic in its 'quick and dirty' solution that treats with distain and disavows age old Classical Jewish Biblical interpretations the Jewish Torah (the five books of Moses). While the Christian religion, including the LDS faith, proclaims Jesus Christ to be the one and only Savior and Messiah of the world, Classical Jewish beliefs stipulate that there is to be two coming Messiahs. There is to be a Messiah Ben David or Judah as first designated in Genesis 49:8-12 and a Messiah Ben Joseph/Ephraim as also first designated in Genesis 49:22-26.

In blessing Judah, Jacob states that 'the sceptre shall not depart from Judah or a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh comes.' Shiloh is Christ as stipulated in Genesis 50:24 of the JST (Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible). This, of course, ties to King David's promise of being the ancester to Shiloh the Messiah that would come at the time of the last days and the gathering again of Israel as specified in Micah 5:1-3. In Micah it speaks of this Messiah Ben Judah/David as coming out of Bethlehem Ephratah (note: in a rather lengthy appendix discussion which will be refered to a number of times in this commentary, it will be established that there was a Bethlehem-Judah and an Bethlehem-Ephratah which relates to Ephrath, Ephrathites, Ephraimites, and Ephraim) and he would be the lawgiver in Israel of old everlasting come at the time of the return of the remnant of Israel. This is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem-Ephrath, son of God and Mary whose adoptive father was Joseph the carpenter. Joseph was not the Joseph of old of Eygpt of which we speak next, but a Jewish Joseph of the House of David. And while both Mary and Joseph are considered to be of the House of David, it is not for certain that Mary was other than she was the only earthly parent of Jesus through whom the blood of King David and Judah could have become ancestor to the Messiah. And of course, the coming of Shiloh at the last day's gathering is Christ's second coming having already triumphed over sin and redeemed his people spiritually during his 'mortal' ministry. Thus he then returns all powerful and glorious to subdue the earth to his ministry and reign of the Millenneum.

However the Classical Jew will point out that Joseph of Egypt was to be the father of the 'Shepherd Messiah' the 'Rock of Israel' as established in Jacob's blessing upon the head of Joseph in Genesis 49. Here traditional Christianity does a poor job of conviencing the classical Jew, who knew the Torah frontwards and backwards from all ages, that Christ, the son of a Jew could meet this qualification of being of the house of Joseph of Egypt. And the Classical Jew does not understand how one person could be both of the House of Joseph and of the House of Judah. Thus they resort to there must be two Messiah's. Traditionally, Christians have gotten around this by suggesting that the 'shepherd and rock of Israel' clause was not referring at all to Joseph which the Classical Jew scoffs at with good reason.

The blessing is on the head of Joseph given by Jacob and the subject of topic sentence of the blessing paragraph is that it is Joseph that is being spoken of and to. After all it was Joseph's blessing and not Jacob's who was one giving it. Thus when the traditional Christian says, that the 'shepherd and rock of Israel' claus refers back to a noun which is the object of a deeply embedded object of a clarifying prepositional phrase concerning either the 'Almighty God of Jacob' or just 'Jacob,' they but snicker that the traditional Christian knows not the scriptures, the Jewish Torah, nor of their own language of English translation.

First the topic sentence of the paragraph is all about Joseph being 'from thence is the shepherd, the rock of Israel.' And if it does refer to Jacob, how silly it is for Jacob to be giving a blessing to Joseph and speak of himself and not Joseph in the blessing just to stipulate that he Jacob is the source of the shepherd of Israel not Joseph which he already stated as being of Judah in Judah's blessing if indeed Christ is both Shiloh and the shepard, the rock of Israel.

And second, if per chance it refers to the 'Almighty God of Jacob' as being from where the shepherd and rock of Israel is descendant from, they then have one caught up in the Catholic doctrine of Christ being his own father and the three Gods in one, which is not satisfactory to LDS doctrine at all. And although perhaps compliant with some traditional Christian beliefs, it is not consistant with the truth of the matter. Christ was not his own father and the Old Testament does speak of Jehovah's God which would be God the father, Jehovah or Christ being the God of the Earth and of the Old Testament, who is the 'One God' we worship being placed in that position by the anointing of his Father Elohim, in the pre-councels in heaven.

Thirdly, there is a very clumbsy traditional Christian explanation that doesn't wash at all of Joseph the carpenter being Christ's father as the Messiah Ben Joseph. The blessing was to Joseph of old, son of Jacob and not Joseph the carpenter. Joseph the carpenter was not Christ's true father as he could not be and Christ still be who he claimed to be, the son of God. Thus that explanation fails on a number of basis.

And the 'quick and dirty' manner in which 'traditional Christianity' has swept this consideration of two Messiahs aside is but a stumbling block to the Classical Jew considering Christ as the Messiah. Not that the Classical Jew would accept the pronouncement of Christianity anyway, but at least the pronoucement needs to be viable, logical and sound in its argument to ever be taken seriously even by the thinking Christian. More likely, in this matter, the Classical Jew is the source of their own sumbling block, particularly in the matter at hand in the Book of Ruth.

You see, the 'traditional Jewish perspective' is positioned by the Jews being the sole source of the ancient scripture's compilation after their Babylonian enslavement over 500 years B.C. What we have is the result of this later compilation by such as Ezekiel and others who later salvaged from their own perspective with commentary, what we have as the Old Testament today. And this is its own stumbling block to their acceptatnce of Christ. For they are but one of the tribes of Jacob, and their persective is so slanted upon the matter as guided by their own 'Jewish' perspective. And for a people so prone to the killing and stoning of the ancient prophets of God and cruxifying Christ, who is to say but that from the Jewish perspective they do prefer to set themselve in the most favorable light, and at times at the expense of hiding, oportunistically interpreting or just merely missing the truth of the matter from a more objective frame of refereence. It will be most interesting to compare the entire brass plates of Laban version which existed before the Babylonian captivity in a more pure form to what has been compiled only from such a limited Jewish perspective in the Old Testament Bible when that record is brought forth.

Now as for determining an objective, if not also an LDS perspective of the matter, one obvious place to begin is with that of the ancestry of the Messiah. And from an LDS testimonial perspective cutting directly to the ancestry of Jesus Christ and his well known great ancestor King David seems most appropriate. And that ancestry is set out in a short four chapter book in the Old Testament known as the Book of Ruth. So here we are.

Now the Book of Ruth by many has been viewed as just a nice little literary work without much historical or religious perspective to it at all. No prophets, no grand national leaders, just a simple story of the faith of one women, namely Ruth is considered significant by many a scholar of history or of the Bible. Yet traditionally from the Jewish perspective and many scholarly Christian perspectives, that is hardly the case at all. The Book of Ruth is most historical, very central in establishing Christ's Jewish descent, and has many finer points of Hebrew doctrine. And though there is argument as to the Book of Ruth's historical placement and meaning accordingly, today's placement of the Book is precisely where it belongs. That is at the end of the Book of Judges, and while the judges yet lived, the founding of the ancestry of the Kings of Israel and Judah was in the works. The very ancestral line of the Messiah, the Christ of the world, the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind was being determined as presented in this little four chapter book, the Book of Ruth. And if Christ must be both Messiah Ben David and Messiah Ben Joseph, therein may will, as this commentary will ascribe to, be the whole key to the matter.

Shavuot

The entire Law of Moses, its feast and sacrifices to the Christian all point to the Son of God as the Lamb of God and the object of such ancient practices and foreshadowings is of the coming of Christ and His Atoning sacrifice (Jacob 4:5-6 & Alma 25:15-16; 34:14). And in Christ was all these ancient ordinances and practices fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18 & 3 Nephi 12:17-19), thus Christians today do not commonly practice them, though they still have some meaning well worth looking into. Now the commandments of God of righteous living are still in force, that is the law. But the law of animal sacrifice is done away with in the fulfillment of Christ. However to the Jew, who does not accept Christ, these practices do continue but without an understanding of their fuller meanings and implications in respect to Christ the Lord and Savior even their Messiah. Yet in some respects, by their very adherance to the practices, they do know some things that are often lost to the Christian world in general.

To the Jewish world, the Paasover Feast and celebration is in respect to the events which occured in Egypt and they have lost the foreshadowing of the Lamb of God and his Atonement. In this they are stuck in the ancient past with Moses and have not advanced beyond that perspective to even include Christ and the Messiah as a part of their celebration. Of course this is a generality which may be disputed. But all the feasts and celebrations of the Old Testament Law were and are related to Jehovah, Christ and the Lord's Gospel Plan. Just as Christ was sacrificed during the Passover week, the 'feast of weeks' also holds Christian significance as being the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Ghost upon the people. But to the ancient Jew, the 'feast of weeks' or Shavuot (Hag Ha-Shavuot) is also traditionally associated with the giving of the Law by God to Moses upon the mount, which may likely be. But this too has an ancient and more Modern application in Christianity in the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Ghost upon the early Christian Saints. Further, these limited applications may also well have further applications to times and events from the very beginning of the anointing of the Son by God His Father to the very end of time and the final days of Judgment yet to come. That is to be seen.

In respect to the Book of Ruth, the 'Feast of Weeks', Shavuot or Pentecost, has a particular interesting connection. Traditionally, on this day which comes seven weeks and the next day after the Sabbath of the Passover, which makes it a Sunday of Pentecost, the Book of Ruth is read upon that day. But why particularly that one small four chapter book is selected to be read on one of Jehovah's great feast days is not fully comprehended. Of course there are various explanations of the lessons of Ruth to be learned from the book. But the 'Feast of Weeks' is that of the 'First Fruits' and the 'First Fruits' in a spiritual sense carries a great significance in any number of ways. Further, the Book of Ruth is the Savior's or Messiah's pronounced history of his ancestry associated with the Torah or the books of Moses which contain the perplexing blessing of Judah and Joseph both being ancestors to the coming Messiah(s). And as is obviously lost to the Jewish world is indeed how it is that Christ is both of the House of David or Judah and of the House of Joseph/Ephraim as required by the classical reading and interpretation of the Torah. So could it just be that in the reading of this simple little book lies the very solution to that seeming ancient dilima which by the blindness of their own eyes the Jews have lost sight of? Again, herein is why we have come to this commentary upon the Book of Ruth.

The Day the Jews Accept Jesus as the Messiah

Now before we actually turn to the commentary on Ruth, more needs to be said about the 'feast of first fruits' or the day of Pentecost, the same being Shavuot or the feast of weeks. In Acts chapter 2, Peter gives an explanation to the witnesseses of the events of the coming of the Holy Ghost and the resulting gift of tongues whereby all could hear in their own tongue the words of the Apostles of the Lord. Peter states that this was to be so in the last days when the spirit of the Lord would pour out upon the nations and in verse 16 he refers to the events recorded by Joel. These events where also quoted by Moroni to Joseph Smith from the 2nd chapter of Joel, the 28th verse to the end of that chapter where it speaks of the coming of Christ in the last days. And this is when the Jews will have all bariers and stumbling blocks of understanding removed in their acceptance of Jesus being the one and only Messiah. And therein will they know how Christ is both Messiah Ben David and Messiah Ben Joseph and can be of both houses of Israel in one. And they will accept him as their saving and redeeming Lord and Savior. The irony may be that they have been reading the very book of the Old Testament every year at the time of Pentecost which does hold for them that very explanation.

Ruth Chapter 1 Ephrathite deaths leave widows in Moab1 Return to Israel; A Test of Commitment 6 Ruth Truly Committed to the Lord 15 Naomi's Mission Unfulfilled; Call me Mara 20	Ruth Chapter 2 Ruth goes to glean grain; Boaz meets her 1 Boaz is kind to Ruth 8 Ruth gleans till evening and reports to Naomi 17 Naomi counsels Ruth 20
Ruth Chapter 3 Naomi tells Ruth to approach Boaz 1 She lays down at his feet at night 7 He promises be her kinsman redeemer if another does not 10	Ruth Chapter 4 Boaz takes Ruth's next-of-ken before the elders 1 The man suggests that Boaz redeem her 6 Boaz announces redemption and the elders respond 9 Children born to the couple; genealogy leads to David 13

.

__________________________________

Next

More Ruth

Commentary home

Contact