Conference yukon::christian_v7

	Well, I guess I should go first and tell you my thoughts, which were,
	to use a broad brush :-), that it's sexist, patronising and deceitful.

	The sexist aspect is pretty clear; Boaz comes to his field, in
	which Ruth is working, and takes a fancy to her as though she is his
	chatel (my impression); that Ruth lies at his feet.

	The patronising aspect is also pretty clear; Boaz asks his men,
	essentially, to make it easy for Ruth to gather the wheat and earn
	some money.

	The deceitful part is perhaps not so clear; Ruth slips from the bed
	of Boaz such that nobody knows; Boaz knows he wants Ruth; Boaz deceives
	the other guy into parting with the land using Ruth as a pawn.

	- Paul.


	
 

Hi Paul, thanks...

I guess the sexist aspect was inevitable, in a society where the different 
roles and characteristics of the sexes was generally recognised, accepted 
and valued.

� Boaz comes to his field, in which Ruth is working, and takes a fancy to her 

Now that's pretty clear.  Love just about at first sight.  I can't help but
laugh when I read it and see him saying to his workers (rough paraphrase;-), 
 "Uh, she may not be familiar with our practices.... Don't embarrass her if 
  she walks off with the lions share of the harvest, in fact, encourage her 
  to take all she wants..." 2:14-15

But remember, before this, he's heard of her honourable reputation, her
care over her mother-in-law, and allegiance to the LORD. (2:11-12).  That 
is the grounds for his initial concern.  It's only after their lunch date 
in 2:14... (if you'll excuse the expression), that the friendship develops...

Hey, had the guy no natural modesty at all??? ;-)  All his workers must 
have known he was quite taken, if not totally besotted...  But they 
respected him (as I see in the mutual greetings, which honour the LORD, in 
Ruth 2:4).

�	The patronising aspect is also pretty clear; Boaz asks his men,
�	essentially, to make it easy for Ruth to gather the wheat and earn
�	some money.

Hmmm.  It's his field and his farm.  I only see this as his attraction to 
her showing through.  Does it have to be patronising to show love in a 
practical way?

� as though she is his chatel (my impression); that Ruth lies at his feet.
� The deceitful part is perhaps not so clear; Ruth slips from the bed
� of Boaz such that nobody knows; Boaz knows he wants Ruth; Boaz deceives
� the other guy into parting with the land using Ruth as a pawn.

This is part of the levitical law.  If a woman is widowed, she was not 
expected to compete with the world for a living; the family of her dead 
husband retained a responsibility for her livelihood.  I guess they saw 
things a little differently from us, and her life included a full marital
relationship, which would normally be assumed by the dead husband's
brother, where they were living as a family (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). 
However, Ruth was a foreigner, so Boaz was apparently diffident about
assuming this position as a right.  For redemption of land by a relative,
see Leviticus 25:25 

I would read it that her mother-in-law, Naomi sees that there is some 
attraction, and after some time - when the harvest is nearly about over 
(2:23) - she gives Ruth some advice (3:1...).  Her advice is to indicate
that Ruth (and, effectively, Naomi) puts herself (themselves) under Boaz'
legal protection, according to the levitical law.

Boaz accepts the responsiblity, and gives Ruth the grain (3:15) as a pledge
that he will see that they are provided for, bearing in mind that there is 
a closer relative.  The secrecy is so that Ruth's reputation should not 
suffer through misunderstanding (she was still a Moabitess, whose actions 
were likely to be misjudged or misunderstood).

Then Deuteronomy 25:5 is applied, in Ruth 4.  Boaz approaches the closer
relative, on the basis of the land, and when he is willing to accept the
commercial advantage, brings in the more delicate matter of the for Ruth
(and Naomi).  The other relative is already married, so cannot assume full 
obligations towards the wing of the family in whose name the land is held, 
so bows out, leaving the field (so to speak, but really, Ruth;-) to Boaz...

I wouldn't call it deceitful.  Quite open and above board, by the
legitimate dealings of the day.  Noew, when the honest intent is made
clear, the matter of the nocturnal visit to the threshing floor can be seen
in it's full social light, and actually becomes a public part of the events 
which are recorded in Ruth.  Had there been anything to be achamed of 
there; had both their intents not been totally upright, I doubt we would 
have the book in the canon of scripture.

But then, that's how *I* understand it.  As a touching and sensitive love
story, of how God took the personal needs of individuals, and wove it into
a glorious part of His plan (as ancestors of the LORD Jesus, and many
detailed exciting facets). 

Your perception may well, of course, still be different...

							God bless
								Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    My understanding agrees quite well with yours.  Thanks for entering.
    
    Mark L.

			There is a Biblical priority placed upon
	bearing children / being fruitful.  For instance, the meaning
	of the name of one of Joseph's two sons is "fruitful".  God 
	said, "be fruitful".  Look at the strivings of the two women,
	Leah and Rachel, ( as well as Hagar and Sarah ).  Being fruitful
	was a major priority!  It was regarded as a testimony of God's
	favor.  Being fruitful was granted to Abraham, to Jacob, and
	to the posessors of the promises of God.  It was regarded as
	a sign of favor and blessedness!  "Now you are the 'blessed'
	of the Lord", Abimilech said when he saw the fruitfulness of
	Abraham.  Now, Not having children was regarded as a testimony 
	from God *against* a person/family.  From Naomi's point of view, 
	she was essentially ruined.  She believed unfruitfulness was a
	God's testimony against her - and she could do nothing about it.
	A bloodline of major importance was about to be wiped out.  Now,
	if the devil could have arranged for it to be wiped out, he would
	have. ( Certainly, the slaughter of Hebrew male children in Egypt
	and the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem are examples. )
	But... praise God!!!  The Lord would not let that happen, and 
	His angels were on assignment.

			By having children through Boaz, Ruth was quite
	literally raising up seed for Naomi's dead, ( note the parallel
	to the resurrection ).  Ruth removed the sting of bitterness 
	from Naomi.  She kept the bloodline alive.  She saved the name 
	of Naomi's family.  She restored Naomi's "life", and the name 
    	of the family that would help to bring Jesus into the world was 
    	preserved through her.  Praise God!!  What she did was important.
    	Otherwise, it would not be in the Bible as a testimony.

			Was there falseness, and lust in her heart?  No,
	Boaz was an older gentleman.  He praised her for not following 
	( chasing ) after the young men, and demonstrating faithfulness
	to to God, to the dead, and to her mother-in-law.  Was Boaz in
	lust after her?  No way!  If that was on his mind, he would have
	taken her the moment that she made herself available.  What was 
	on _both_ their mind was simply _being_ fruitful unto God and
    	doing the right thing before Him.

								/G.

	The story of Ruth is a wonderful one.

	Viewing Boaz as a type of Christ and Ruth as a type of the church will
yield much enlightenment.

	One aspect that I appreciate about Ruth, is that she was a Moabite (a
descendant of the incestual relationship between Lot and his daughters). The
Moabites were to be excluded from the tribes of Israel (unto the tenth
generation) because of their beginnings, yet Ruth not only received a portion
of the inheritance of Israel through Boaz, but became directly involved in
bringing forth Christ (she became a direct ancestor). Here again, we see God's
mercy and grace.

	God is still seeking the proper persons to bring forth Christ.

ace

    
    		Exellent stuff, Ace!
    							/G.

Another favorite aspect to me is that Ruth's mother-in-law was Rahab, also
a non-Israelite, and would have been able to empathise with Ruth's learning
the ways as a foreigner.  Just a glimpse of God's graciousness...

								Andrew

    to say nothing of the Gentile's (Ruth) role in comforting Israel
    (Naomi) and the sense of the Gentile's love, affection, and idebtedness
    to the Jew (cf. Is. 40, Romans 9-11).
    
    Indeed - the book of Ruth is rich.
    
    steve

.8

Matthew 1:5  And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth;
and Obed begat Jesse;


Interesting rendering in the KJV:  Bo-oz (I believe)

    After having recently lead a Bible class on the book of Ruth, I also
    think the book of Ruth is VERY RICH in Jewish meaning as well as
    salvation.
    
    Allow me to summarize:
    	The book is laid out into three distinct parts.
        Chapter 1 & 1/2 of Chapter 2      - represents Grace.
        Latter portion of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3   - represents Mercy
        and Chapter 4  -represents Grace.
    
    Grace - freely given that which we do not deserve.
    Mercy - not given that which we do deserve.
    Peace - receiving justly what we do deserve.
    
    - Be back later - time permitting, PDM

    	re: matt. 1:5
    
    	I think Andrew threw us a red Salmon.
    
    					:-)
    							/Greg

Understanding the context (historical, social, politcal, etc) of Biblical 
events often helps me to understand the events much more than I would 
otherwise.  So before actually going through Ruth's story, I'd like to 
very briefly look at its context.

According to what I've researched, the book of Ruth was probably written
around the time of King David, though it cannot be dated conclusively.
However, the actual events that are recorded in Ruth, occured during the 
time of the judges in Israel.  This time setting is established in 1:1 -
"In the days when the judges ruled, ..."

This was a dark time in Israel's history.  It occured between the time when 
Joshua led the people and the establishment of the monarchy.  It was marked 
by a turning away of God's people from God (apostacy), by corruption, and 
scandels.  There was not an adherence to moral standards on the part of the
populace as a whole.  Judges 21:25 puts it this way:  "In those days
Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."  Because of the people's 
unfaithfulness, they were allowed to fall into the hands of raiders and 
marauders from other groups around them.  

Although God let the people be chastised, He did not abandon them completely.
Instead he raised up judges for them.  The Hebrew term which has been 
translated "judge" does not primarily mean a legal arbitrater, but rather
it is a deliverer or savior.  Judges 2:16 shows us the purpose of these
people whom God raised up as judges for His people: "Then the Lord raised up
judges who saved them out of the hands of these raiders".

I think that one of the neat things about the Bible is that it does not
try to hide or deny meaness, immorality, or wickedness of people - not even
of its protagonists.  It portrays people the way they really are, and these
days with the horrors and atrocities we hear about from places like Bosnia,
Somalia, and our own cities and country sides, we cannot claim that their
behavior was any more primitive or "unenlightened" than the behavior of 
people today.  But just because a particular behavior is written about in the 
Bible doesn't mean that God condones or favors this behavior.  For a contrast 
with the way that Boaz and Ruth came to be married, read about how wives were 
attained for the surviving Benjamites after most of them had been slaughtered.
(Judges 21:20-23).  Many, (maybe most) of the events recorded in the book of 
Judges are violent, sad, and dark.

It is against this time period that the story of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz is set.
I found the story to be one which shows God's grace for people who put their
trust in Him, and are obedient to His law, and who show kindness, respect, and 
consideration for other people.  It is a shining light set against the darkness
of that era in Israel's history.  It is akin to the way God "writes the story
of salvation on the dark background of sin".

I've only got a few minutes, so will wait until a later time to start on
chapter 1 of Ruth.  However, I've been eager to begin, so I'll just a 
mention a few interesting things that I've found out.

One of things that I've heard about good writing is that it is better to
"show" rather "tell" in a story narrative.  That is, to let the reader
draw their own conclusions, rather than spelling everything out for them.
One way to do this is to use dialogue, and this is exactly what the writer
of Ruth does.  50 of the 85 verses in Ruth are dialogue.  More than that,
the writer employed a distinct manner of speaking for each of the main 
characters, using idioms, colloquilism, and expressing the particular 
characteristics of that person through the way they spoke.  Unfortunately, 
we have lost most, if not all, of this flavor through the translation to 
English, and the passage of time between our culture and the culture in 
which this story took place. 

In Biblical times, the meaning of a person's name was very important.  The
names of the people and places in Ruth add a great deal of depth and under-
standing to the narrative.  For example, the name Naomi meant pleasant.
When she returns from Moab, bereft of husband, sons, and family fortunes,
Naomi tells the people of Bethlehem not to call her Naomi anymore, but to
call her Mara, which means bitter, instead.  This a reflection of her 
condition - destitute, and of how she feels about her relationship with God - 
He has dealt bitterly with her, perhaps because of her family's lack of trust
in Him and their move to Moab, a land of idolatry (worshipped the god Chemosh)
and often a land at enmity with Israel.  Naomi isn't left destitute though,
and her name continues to be "Pleasant".  Anyhow, I'll talk a little bit more
about the meanings of the names in this book as we get to those points in the
story.

In our Bible study, we took turns leading the discussion on Ruth from the 
perspective of various themes.  The theme that I took was hope and despair 
in Ruth.  This will probably be the basis of what I write in here because,
having prepared that study, I have the most material from this perspective.
I will try and include other stuff that was brought up in our other "looks" 
at Ruth as well.  And PDM can fill in what I miss because he's part of the
same study group also.

I looked up hope and despair in the dictionary, and thought it would be
good to preface the study of Ruth with these definitions:

Hope:
  1) desire accompanied by _expectation_ (expect = to look for)
  2) the thing that one has a hope for, the reason for the hope
  3) archaic: to trust or rely on
  4) from the base "hop" - to leap up in expectation

What I noticed about this is that it seems to carry an excitement in a 
positive way about the future.

Despair:
  1) to be without hope; to loose or give up hope

What I noticed about this is that despair must be defined in terms of hope -
the absence of hope.

Two words which seem related to despair are:

Desolate: left alone, solitary, forlorn, wretched and
Desperate: driven to, or resulting from loss of hope; offering so little
           chance for improvement as to cause despair, archaic: without hope

Although I've talked a lot more about despair in these opening two notes 
(the time of the judges, and Naomi suggesting a name change for herself), 
there really is a whole lot more hope in Ruth than there is despair.  Ruth 
is 4 chapters in length.  The sadness is all in chapter 1, and even there, 
there is no total despair, unless you consider Naomi's other daughter-in-law, 
Orpah, returning to the futility of idolatry.

Well, gotta run.  Actually should have left here 20 minutes ago.  Oh well.

Leslie

I've been thinking about what might be the best way to go through Ruth in
these notes, and I've decided to sort of re-tell the story, skimming and 
summarising some parts, and stopping to take a closer look at other parts.
This way the context of the story will be maintained without going through
it all verse by verse.

In the first couple of verses the background is laid.  Naomi, her husband
Elimelech, and their two sons Mahlon and Kilion leave Bethlehem in Judah,
or Bethlehem Judah as it was also known, and travel to Moab because there 
was a famine in the land around Bethlehem.  There are a few things to note 
here in these first verses.  

The name Elimelech means "God is my king".  The family is refered to as being 
Ephrathites (1:2).  Ephrath was an old name for Bethlehem, and probably 
indicates that they were from an old, established and distinguished family - 
sort of local aristocracy.  Bethlehem means "house of bread" and Judah means 
"praise".  

Now the Moabites were a people who were descended from the incestuous 
relationship of Lot with one his daughters.  As mentioned earlier, these 
people became idolators and worshipped a god named Chemosh.  Great bitterness 
developed between Israel and Moab.  

God originally instructed the Hebrews _not_ to bother the people of Moab 
when they came into the promised land because God had set aside their land 
as an inheritance for Lot's descendents.  But when Moab saw the Hebrews 
coming into the promised land they were afraid of them.  And since they felt 
they could not defeat the Hebrews  militarily, they sought to defeat them by 
having a sorcerer named Balaam lay curses on them.  Three times the king of 
Moab asked the Balaam to curse the Hebrews, and three times, instead of curses,
blessings came out of his mouth because God intervened.  This very interesting
(and strange to us) story can be found in Numbers 22 through 24.  

When Moab found that they would not be able to defeat Hebrews through sorcery 
and divination, they turned to seduction.  They used their women to sexually 
seduce the Isaelite men, and through this, to get them to turn away from God 
and worship the pagan gods.  Because of their unfaithfulness, the Isaelites 
suffered a plague which killed many of them, and they also came against the 
Moabites in battle and defeated them.  God issued a prohibition against 
marrying the people of Moab.  In Psalm 108:9 we see that Moab is refered to 
as God's wash basin.  One commentary that I read said that this might be 
paraphrased as God's garbage can.

So putting all this together back into the story of Ruth, we see that 
this family who knew God as their king and who lived in the house of bread
and praise, instead of trusting God and supporting their community in this
time of famine, left it and went to stay in a garbage can full of idolatry. 
Now they didn't just go for a visit, but they went to _live_ there (1:2).
A couple of things happened.  Elimelich died, and Mahlon and Kilion both 
married Moabite women.  Then both of them die.  It's interesting to note 
that Mahlon means "weakling" and Kilion means "puny" so these guys probably
weren't very strong and healthy to begin with.  Anyhow, they die, and Naomi
is left, an alien in foreign land with two daughter-in-laws from that land.
Pretty bleak.

But there comes a point of hope.  Naomi hears that things are going well
in Bethlehem and there is food there.  So she decides to return.  And here
is where I will have to break off for today as I've got to get home.

Leslie

    Absolutely wonderful, Leslie!  Consistent with studies I've
    read on Ruth.  I'm eagerly awaiting more entries!
    
    -greta

	Well, I think you've all got wonderful imaginations. The story
	is probably a lesson in some local law that was prevalent at the time.
	Nothing more.

	- Paul.

    -1
    
    Paul,  
    
    Outside of this one statement, which is offensive.  Your response is
    fine.
    
    > Well, I think you've all got wonderful imaginations. 
    
    
    >The story is probably a lesson in some local law that was prevalent at
    >the time. Nothing more.
    
    May I ask why you couldn't refrain to the topic at hand without the
    personal attack?  This statement would have been sufficient to keep the
    discussion going without possibly "hurting someone's feelings."
    
    Nancy

�         <<< Note 279.17 by GYMAC::PNEAL "non-preferred shareholder" >>>

�	Well, I think you've all got wonderful imaginations. 

Glad you enjoyed them!  Reckon they rate inspiration ? ;-)

� The story is probably a lesson in some local law that was prevalent at the 
� time. 

I thought we pointed out exactly what 'local' laws were relevant....

� Nothing more.

Oh Paul! - No sexism any more?  No patronising landowner's demands?...

At least we've answered your initial observations then! ;-)


							Andrew

	Nancy, I've heard worse, and they were from some mods.......



Glen

    Glen,
    
    So have I, but let's live in today,not yesterday.
    
    Nancy

	Nancy, my reply was void of any personal attack on you or anybody 
	else in this conference. If you took offence, or anybody else for that
	matter, at what you think I said then I apologise.

	I won't patronise you by saying I think it's a nice story when I don't
	and I won't lie to you either. I read the book of Ruth with an open
	mind. I actually hoped that it would do something for me but it
	didn't. The earth didn't move. My mind didn't light up with a vision
	of God. I was hoping that somebody in here might show me something
	that I missed.
	
	I don't even think it's a story that has any relevance in todays' 
	society - if it was me that you thought was living in the past.

	Notes is a difficult medium to discuss these things in any depth. I
	can only try to communicate my thoughts to you through my words and 
	if they cause offence then I'm sorry.

	- Paul.

 


	
	

    -1
    
    Thanks Paul.  No problem.  can you see that when you start off a 
    sentence telling the person who has obviously spent an enormous amount 
    of time and care into a study of the Book of Ruth that she/he has a great 
    imagination.... well, it can be taken hurtfully.  
    
    
    
    

Paul,

I'll hope you'll stick around to read the rest of what our study on Ruth
helped me to see about it anyway.  Even if you disagree with it.

I was out on vacation Friday, catching up at work today.  I have another
entry about ready to be put in, but probably won't get it finished until
tomorrow.

Leslie

PS.  I'm not writing this specifically for Paul, but because I was so im-
     pressed with what the book of Ruth had to say about God, and about what
     it means to be a redeemer.  I see it as relating to Jesus.  Although
     I hope that it would be meaningful to Paul, if it is helpful to anyone
     then I will be glad.

    Hi Paul,
    
    Speaking for myself, I'm not offended by what you said.  I'm intrigued
    by what you said, but not offended.
    
    If Ruth is giving you trouble, or at a minimum, not "shaking the earth"
    for you, are there other writings you'd like to pursue?  Say Psalm 23
    (a favorite!), Isaiah 53 (a favorite...oh - they're ALL favorites! ;-).
    
    Stay tuned though - I think Leslie has done a great job sharing her
    thoughts on the subject.
    
    Steve

| <<< Note 279.21 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| So have I, but let's live in today,not yesterday.


	Isn't that the Christian way? Let's not worry about the past, let's
just deal with the now. But that's how the same mistakes happen over and 
over again.....


Glen

    Glen,
    
    There is merit to looking at past mistakes.  But rubbing one's face in
    them does not accomplish what you are asking.
    
    Unfortunately I see the same dialogue debates come up with you OVER AND
    OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again... 
    
    SOMETHING is very wrong with the pattern of behavior, Glen.  Is it
    perhaps unforgiveness?  
    
    You know when I was married and my husband pointed a gun at me [he was
    so drunk he could barely stand] and warned me that if I moved, he'd
    shoot me [I had just gone to bed], I was hurt, angry, scared and
    embittered.  He HAD wronged me and the next MORNING he didn't remember
    a thing about the incident and told everyone I was crazy and had made
    it up.   Everytime I wanted to express my hurt about that I'd bring up
    the gun and use the situation as a "weapon" against him.  I had not
    forgiven him for this...  even though he didn't ask.
    
    Forgiveness from a Christian should come without the asking [I've learned
    this, this part year].  It is unforgiveness that rubs others faces in
    their mistakes all the time.
    
    God also says that unforgiveness gives Satan the advantage over one's
    life... that is the one that is unforgiving.
    
    Glen, I forgive you for the hurt you have caused me and the offense of
    your continual harassment of this Conference and its noters.  I pray
    that you will also learn to forgive us our shortcomings.
    
    Nancy
    
    

| <<< Note 279.27 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| There is merit to looking at past mistakes.  But rubbing one's face in
| them does not accomplish what you are asking.

	It would seem that by bringing them up is bad enough....

| Unfortunately I see the same dialogue debates come up with you OVER AND
| OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again...

	Many mistakes Nancy.... many mistakes.....

| SOMETHING is very wrong with the pattern of behavior, Glen.  Is it
| perhaps unforgiveness?

	I've forgiven everyone for all of the injustices that have occured....

| Forgiveness from a Christian should come without the asking [I've learned
| this, this part year].  It is unforgiveness that rubs others faces in
| their mistakes all the time.

	One should not appear to be holier than thou and no one would bring up
their past mistakes. (btw, this isn't directed at anyone in particular)



Glen

    Moved chit-chat notes as requested into topic 14.
    
    Nancy

Naomi starts back to Bethlehem accompanied by her two daughter-in-laws,
Orpah and Ruth.  At some point, probably a crossroads - one way continuing
to Bethlehem, and the other possibly leading back to the Orpah's and Ruth's 
parental homes, Naomi stops and attempts to:

   1) encourage these two young women to return to their parental homes
   2) discourage them from continuing with her to Bethlehem.

Naomi begins this with a prayer for their future in Moab, but she directs
that prayer specifically to God (Yahweh) rather than using a general term
for god.  She looks to God to to show them kindness, the word translated
"kindness" by the NIV is hesed; according to what I've read, carries with it
a sense of a covenantal steadfastness, faithfulness, and warmth.  The word
that has been translated "rest" is not so much a cessation of labors, but
rather security and blessing.

1:8b-9  "May the Lord show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead
and to me.  May the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home
of another husband."

In that time, about the only "career" available to women in rural areas was 
that of a wife.  When her first entreaties fail, Naomi launches into arguments
for why the should not go to Bethlehem - basically because she thinks there 
is no hope of a good future for them there.

All of them cry, and Orpah allows herself to be persuaded to go back, but 
Ruth does not.  Instead she responds with a beautiful statement of commitment
and faith that is many times used in wedding ceremonies today.  This is in
Ruth 1:16-17.

  "Where you go, I will go" 
   - Ruth is staying with Naomi out of commitment to her, not out of a desire 
     for personal gain.
     
  "Where you stay, I will stay"
   - Ruth is identifying herself with Naomi, and accepting the conditions
     of Naomi's life, including poverty.

  "Your people will be my people"
   - Having identified herself with Naomi, Ruth now identifies herself with
     God's people, she is forsaking idolators.

  "and your God, my God"
   - This is the explanation for the preceeding, Ruth identifies herself
     with, and ties her future to Naomi and the Israelites, because she
     believes and trusts in God.

  "Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.  
   - Ruth is stating very strongly that her commitment is permanent in 
     nature, it is for the duration of her life.  In one way, not even death 
     will be able to seperate Ruth from Naomi; though she will probably outlive 
     Naomi, Ruth will continue in the land of Israel and continue to identify 
     herself with God's people.  Furthermore, Ruth may be expressing her faith
     in the resurrection.  The patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
     the Hebrew people of first testament times expected that they would be
     resurrected not to heaven, but to the land of Israel.  So their desire
     was to be buried in Israel to await the resurrection.  (I hope to provide
     you with more information on this later)  
 
   "May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely if anything but death 
    separates you and me."
    - To show how serious she is about her commitment to Naomi, to God, and 
      to God's people, Ruth seals her promises with a type of oath.  This same
      "formula" is found elsewhere in the books Samuel and Kings.

Naomi sees that Ruth is determined and accepts her decision.  This is 
probably a good place to mention the meanings of the names Orpah and Ruth.
I found a couple of different meanings for both.  Orpah means fawn or deer,
and also may mean stiff-necked.  Orpah, though she shed tears, was not
fully committed to and trusting of God.  She turned back to the pagan gods she
had known in her childhood.  Ruth means friend or beautiful.  She was a
true friend to Naomi.

When Naomi and Ruth reach Bethlehem, they cause quite a stir amongst the
inhabitants.  The towns people ask, "Can this be Naomi ?".  The fact that
her return causes a stir contributes to the idea that she came from a 
prominent family as I mentioned in an earlier note.  Their query probably
indicates that the years have altered her appearance greatly.

Naomi's reply in verses 20 & 21 indicates this even more so - the years have 
changed her, and not for the better.  "Don't call me Naomi" (pleasant), she 
says, "Call me Mara (bitter), for I left with much, but the Lord has 
brought me back empty.  The Almighty has afflicted me and brought calamity
upon me."  Naomi is very despairing here.  She uses the term "Sadday", 
translated Almighty, indicating God's strength and power - that He cannot be 
resisted.  God has set Himself against Naomi, and there is nothing she can
do about it.

But though it may look to Naomi as if God is against her, there are some
hopeful points to notice.  First, Naomi has not been abandoned by God, 
God has been with her, and has brought her back to Israel.  Secondly, she 
and Ruth have arrived at a good time - the beginning of the barley harvest 
(which is in April).  This gives them a hope for obtaining food because there 
is provision for the poor in Israel tied to the harvests.  More will be
included on this in my next note.  Thirdly, we are informed in 2:1 that Naomi 
has a relative or kinsman on her husband's side.  This seemingly irrelevant
bit of information becomes one of the key factors in the story, and later
notes will focus on this is some detail.

Leslie

	Thank you Leslie!

	I've read the book of Ruth exactly once, just after hearing 
	the passage you quoted in a renewal of wedding vows.  Your
	entries are very interesting!  Now when you finish Ruth, you'll
	only have 65 books to go !

	;-)