A Substitute for God
“May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel under whose wings you have come to seek refuge. Ruth 2:12 NASB
Under whose wings – Do you realize that Boaz is the one who actually fulfills the blessing of the Lord that he himself pronounces over Ruth? With the same words, Ruth asks Boaz to cover her with his wings, translated in 3:9 as “covering” (NASB). Boaz desires God to provide for Ruth. Ruth recognizes that God will do so through Boaz. Boaz speaks a self-fulfilling prophecy.
While the self-fulfillment of blessings is repeated in the story of Ruth with other characters, there is another connection here that cannot be overlooked. Ruth is the female superior to Abraham. As Trible notes, “Divine promise motivated and sustained his [Abraham’s] leap of faith. Besides, Abraham was a man, with a wife and other possessions to accompany him. Ruth stands alone; she possesses nothing. No God has called her; no deity has promised her blessing; no human being has come to her aid. . . . Consequently, not even Abraham’s leap of faith surpasses this decision of Ruth’s.”[1] Trible observes that the story requires Boaz to provide the interaction with God that Abraham received directly.
The point is important. First, it deliberately connects the story of Ruth with the story of Abraham. We should be on the lookout for other connecting fibers. To miss the parallels is to miss the true depth of the narrative. Secondly, it reminds us that the appeal for the direct intervention of God in our circumstances is near blasphemy. Ruth is the superior model of divine activity hidden in the ordinary events and characters of the human drama. To expect, even demand, that God show Himself before we act is arrogant, presumptuous and perhaps even sinful. God does show Himself – in whatever ways He happens to choose. It is up to us to recognize His handiwork in disguise, and at times even become the instruments by which His work is accomplished.
There could hardly be a more fitting story for Torah guidance. Ruth is the quintessential outsider. Her very existence is an affront to the Torah. She carries the stigma of scandalous beginnings and broken covenants. Her pagan background allows speculation about sexual impropriety. She comes with nothing but a bad reputation. But she demonstrates a faithfulness greater than Abraham. If we do the same, will not the Judge of all the earth judge justly with us? Ruth is our sister, our mother and our priestess. Do we honor her for who she really is?
Topical Index: under whose wings, Abraham, Boaz, Torah, Ruth 2:12, kanaf
Extremely timely word for me ( we are talking minutes).
Thank you for your obedience.
May the Lord bless you and keep you and shine his face towards you this year.
Skip: another timely insight! To see the hand of God working through others is more difficult (but perhaps more rewarding, certainly more subtle) than seeing His direct intervention. May we all be encouraged by this example. I was confused in the last line with your reference to Ruth as our “priestess” I have never heard such a title/office. Could you elaborate? Thanks in advance.
As a woman used by God to mend the breech between Abraham and Lot, she acts as the priestess-intercessor. Her actions demonstrate the kind of behavior needed by everyone called to heal relationship heartaches. Furthermore, if we read God’s sovereignty into the background of this story, we can only conclude that God chose her for this role.
Thanks! In a sense we are all Lot, needing restoration and healing. I suppose that is what the “grafting in” process is partly about. I read some time ago that the word used in Genesis for the nations being “blessed” by Abraham usually referred to the results of “grafting” for trees….and that a Rabbi who may have been a contemporary of Paul spoke of Ruth the Moabite woman as well as Naamah the Ammonitess in such terms.
Skip, I’m not sure if you’ve presented the argument before that Ruth is spiritually superior to Abraham, but I’m wondering whether this is a new claim or if the rabbis of Israel (and around the world) have widely held this belief? Is this a claim that would be considered scandalous among the teachers of Israel or one that is commonplace?
Actually, it is a claim of the rabbis.
Under His wings– this is the message of the gospel.
God will have mercy on anyone who humbles themself like Ruth and takes refuge under
the wings of God.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.” –Jesus
The Pharisees had nothing more to do than to take refuge under the wings of Jesus.
Stop justifying and glorifyiing themselves. Stop relying on themselves. But they would not.
Ruth was not their model. No falling on their face before Jesus. No bowing down.
No astonishment at amazing grace.
God is not an employer. He is an Eagle looking for people who will take refuge under His wings.
He is looking for people who will leave father and mother and homeland or anything else that may hold us back from a life of sweet love under the wings of Jesus.
I really enjoy the comment from Dorothy it would seem that the Rabbis have made another Mary for themselves just as the R.C.”s have (Perhaps food for thought)
It is unlikely that the rabbis would consider Ruth in the way the Roman Catholic Church view Mary. Ruth is just a woman, used by God, who expresses in her life the deeper context of hesed. For the RCC, Mary is nearly a semi-divine figure, worthy of worship and extolled beyond all other women (and most men, of course). The two are not similar, I’m afraid.
Skip wrote: “the appeal for the direct intervention of God in our circumstances is near blasphemy.”
“To expect, even demand, that God show Himself before we act is arrogant, presumptuous and perhaps even sinful.”
Hi, Skip, I’m having a hard time with these statements. I wonder if I am alone in that. Can you walk me (us) through it a bit more? Because my mind immediately goes to Genesis 32 and Jacob’s struggle with ‘the man’:
“Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[g] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
Isn’t this also a story of Jacob pressing in and keep trying to connect with God (isn’t connection with God the real blessing?)on an intimate level?
Doesn’t Israel mean ‘he who struggles with God?’ Jacob/Israel’s statement makes me think of Exodus 19-20 where we have refused God’s invitation to commune with Him on an intimate level, (this same level Jacob/Israel desired as a result of this ‘struggle’?)because we were afraid, (if we get too close we will die, we think) so we asked Moses to go in our place to personally meet with Him. Didn’t Jacob/Israel in effect say, “I WANT intimacy with YHWH and it is possible!” Would that we have remembered Jacob/Israel at Sinai. Back to Exodus 20, God, seeing our immaturity and loving us anyway, agreed to Moses being our mediator, a type of Messiah. (exodus 20:19-21) Isn’t it true that God wanted to dwell in us at this point and would have, if WE had been ready?(like Jacob/Israel demonstrated he was?) Isn’t THAT the goal of our sojourn here on earth, for YHWH to dwell in us? But since we were not ready THEN, we got a temporary alternative, the tabernacle and later the temple during a kind of betrothal period, which we are STILL in. But isn’t the goal an intimate relationship with Him, where He speaks to US face to face as a man speaks to a friend? (ex. 33:11)? Isn’t that OUR blessing; A return, so to speak of pre-garden sin relationship of ‘walking with YHWH in the cool of the day’? Is it not to be our goal that on an individual basis we can expect, desire, seek this intimacy with Him? Is this not what we are asking for when we seek ‘intervention of God in our circumstances” or when we “expect, even demand, that God show Himself before we act”?(to use your wording) Have I misunderstood what your intent was with your statements above (wouldn’t be the first time with me,haha) or am I off in my theology about one’s purpose here on earth? (keep in mind that I am Torah dependant so I recognize that our relationships with Him are Torah based.) Thanks, Skip.
Hi Gail,
First, let’s not confuse our demand for God to intervene with God’s desire to interact with us. The blasphemy comes when we PRESUME on God to act according to our demands. That is a far cry from expressing our dependence on Him. Perhaps we need to re-read these verses in light of this distinction. Secondly, I just want to raise a slight exegetical issue. Your analysis of these verses treats them as spiritual allegories (almost). In other words, you read them as if they had universal application to everyone, including us, born 5000 years later. Doesn’t this remove the historical uniqueness of the events? Do we really think that we somehow participate in the circumstances of Jacob wrestling with God because we draw some spiritual conclusion from this story? Would you be so quick to read George Washington’s life like this? Re-read your own comment and notice how many times you use the pronoun “we” in applying what Scripture says about ancient people to yourself. Maybe that’s a problem?
Skip, I’m really not trying to analyze anything – I am no biblical scholar, just a homeschooling mommie trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. If I am in error about my expectation that God wants to and will interact with me on a personal basis, (and my ‘evidences’ of this as I wrote above)please let me know scripturally where I went wrong. I didn’t mean allegory at all. I don;t see any of this as allegorical. But yes, I do see a universal (those in Covenant with YHWH) application (throughtout ‘time’ application?) to the events at Sinai. I guess I agree with Jewish tradition that suggests that at that time (giving of the Torah)not only were the Israelites, released from being slaves from Egypt, there but they were joined by ME/US, (how? I can’t speak to that of couse) who are the souls (not to get hung upon greek duality here using the word ‘soul’) of all Israelites that would be born in the future. Do the sages have this wrong? Is this not what is meant by “”those who are here with us standing this day before G-d, and those that are not here with us today”(deut. 29:15) Is this not a reference to all the later generations? Does this not make it a ‘universal application’ of sorts? Because I believe ‘history’ to be cyclical, I see what happened uniquely in history can happen again uniquely in another time. I thought I was begining to grasp your message in ‘further considerations about time and the cross’ but now I am quite confused. I am not saying that BECAUSE we draw some spiritual conclusion from the story of Jacob that THAT somehow allows us to participate with Jacob wrestling. I apologize if I wasn’t more clear and came across as suggesting that. But doesn’t he show us the value of wrestling with God to receive a blessing (in the sense I wrote about above)? Can’t we look to him and say, ‘ah yes! that is the kind of wrestling *I* want to have too, as a son or daughter of Jacob”? Can WE not look at the heart of God at Sinai before ‘THEY’ shirked back in fear and say, *I* want to go into the bridal chamber with my Beloved? Are you saying this is not what He wants with US today? NOt sure where to place your George Washington comment. Did you meant that lighthearted, or as a firm rebuke? I claim no spiritual kinship to Ol’ George, nor do I believe he is one of the Fathers of the Faith. Why is it that YOU do not apply scriptures the way I do? (or the sages do?) I value your input as a teacher of Torah, so please understand that I am not asking to engage in idle discusion for its own sake. I don;t want to blaspheme the Holy One in my exuberance to seek Him with my whole heart. thank you for your time in responding to me, I know you are very busy.
Dearest Gail,
So much to comment on here. You must have been inspired. Let me try a point at a time, and get to as many as I can right now.
1. You are not in error about God’s desire to have intimate relationships with His children.
2. However, allegorical interpretation of the text claims that uniquely historical events are really “lessons” for us. That’s why I raised the issue. It is very common practice for contemporary believers to read the text AS IF it were written for us and to ignore the historical and cultural particularities as a result. Yes, we do draw lessons from the text but, no, it wasn’t written with Gail and Skip in mind.
3. Was Torah given as a universal standard for all men? Yes, and no. It is the standard that God uses and insofar as all men are God’s children, it is applicable to all and intended for all. But on the other hand, only those who come into relationship with Him are really subject to its claim. Men who reject the Spirit thereby reject Torah. They will some day be judged for this rejection, but while they are outside the fellowship of the covenant, they do not ascribe to, nor can we expect them to adhere to Torah.
4. The sages were not wrong (and I agree) that all who stood before Sinai embodied all who would eventually become followers. But that isn’t ALL men. It is those who join the commonwealth of Israel. Right?
5. The LESSON (one of them) of Jacob is about character development and the struggle with God. But that is a LESSON from the text, not what the text actually says. We can INTERPRET the meaning of the text in application, but we must be careful not to suggest that the text actually says this sort of thing. The text is about Jacob, not about Skip or Pam.
6. We might draw a lesson from the life of George Washington, but that isn’t the same as saying that what happened to George is what happens to us.
7. I think you and I agree on most of this. I just try to be very careful about how I say these things since I have decades of experience with those who misunderstand even the simplest Scriptures (me included).
You are very generous with your time with me/this discussion, Skip. Thank you. Inspired? Or a bit of time on my hands?
1. Big grin.
2.Why do you say this is an either or situation? Why do you say if we read it AS IF it were written for us (Sinai example) that this necessitates that we MUST ignore the historical and cultural particularities as a result? Doesn’t Hebraic thinking allow for BOTH to be true? If Sinai was for each individual Israelite therepresent at the time, can it not also be for each individual Israelite not yet born? Israelite=Covenat with YHWH in this case(as I am defingin the term)
3.I must have not been clear enough. The universal aspect I refer to is for those IN COVENANT with YHWH, NOT mankind in general. I mentioned the ‘souls’of those Israelites born after Sinai ie, those in Covenant with YHWH as being the subject. This assumes a relationship with YHWH – not everyone. I’m not sure if you understanding what I mean here changes what you’ve said to me. But I just wanted to clarify that I did not mean EVERYONE – just those in Covenant/who donot reject torah.
4. same response as #3.
5. I am thinking of the levels of interpretation as taught by the sages. PaRDes
6. crickets…crickets….lol
7.I certainly do not intend to go up against your decades of experience, lol. Nor do I desire to agrue FOR my points and this is sounding a little too much like that is what I am doing now! 🙂 I am satisfied with your response to #1. However, if you have more to add, I’ll be listening. Thanks, Skip.