Adherents.com (as of 2007) lists "African Traditional & Diasporic" as a "major religious group", estimating some 100 million adherents. They justify this combined listing of traditional African and African diasporic religions, and the separation from the generic "primal-indigenous" category by pointing out that
the "primal-indigenous" religions are primarily tribal and composed of pre-colonization peoples. While there is certainly overlap between this category and non-African primal-indigenous religious adherents, there are reasons for separating the two, best illustrated by focusing specifically on Yoruba, which is probably the largest African traditional religious/tribal complex. Yoruba was the religion of the vast Yoruba nation states which existed before European colonialism and its practitioners today; certainly those in the Caribbean, South America and the U.S.; are integrated into a technological, industrial society, yet still proclaim affiliation to this African-based religious system. Cohesive rituals, beliefs and organization were spread throughout the world of Yoruba (and other major African religious/tribal groups such as Fon), to an extent characteristic of nations and many organized religions, not simply tribes. (Major Religions Ranked by Size)
Practitioners of traditional religions in sub-Saharan Africa are distributed among 43 countries, and are estimated to number about 70 million, or 12% of African population, while the largest religions in Africa are Christianity and Islam, accounting for 45% and 40%, respectively. As everywhere, adherence to an organized religion does not preclude a residue of folk religion in which traditions predating Christianization or Islamisation survive.
Deities
Main article: African deities
Monotheism and henotheism are widespread among the African traditional religions,[citation needed] as is polytheism. Many indigenous African societies worship a single God (Chukwu, Nyame, Olodumare, Ngai etc.), and some recognize a dual or complementary twin God such as Mawu-Lisa. This they do by paying obeisance to the God through lesser deities (Ogoun, Da, Agwu, Esu, Mbari, etc.). Some societies also deify entities like the earth, the sun, the sea, lightning, or Nature. Each deity has its own priest or priestess.[citation needed] The Ndebele and Shona ethnic groups of Zimbabwe have a trinity - a fundamental family group - made up of God the Father, God the Mother, and God the Son. Among the Fon of West Africa and Benin, God, who is called "Vondu", is androgynous, with both male and female traits.
The Ewe people of southern Ghana have a conception of the high God as a female-male partnership. Mawu who is female is often spoken of as gentle and forgiving. Lisa who is male renders judgment and punishes. Among the Ewe it is believed that when Lisa punishes, Mawu may grant forgiveness. Here we see the complementarity or "supplementarity" (Derrida's term) of male and female that characterizes many of the traditional African religions.
The only example in Africa of a female high Goddess is among the Southern Nuba of Sudan, whose culture has matriarchal traits. The Nuba conceive of the creator Goddess as the "Great Mother" who gave birth to earth and to mankind. (Mbiti, J.S., Introduction to African Religion, Oxford, 1975, p. 53.)
Practices and rituals
Usually, all African traditional religions are considered to be similar by Western people, and are often described as not unlike traditional (pre-Vedic, Vedic, and pre-Abrahamic) religions in most cultures (e.g., Indian, Greek, etc.). Often, God is worshiped through consultation or communion with lesser deities and ancestral spirits. The deities and spirits are honored through libation, sacrifice (of animals, vegetables, or precious metals) and, in some cases, trokosi. The will of God is sought by the believer also through consultation of oracular deities, or divination. In many African traditional religions, there is a belief in a cyclical nature of reality. The living stand between their ancestors and the unborn. Like various other traditional religions, African traditional religions embrace natural phenomena - ebb and tide, waxing and waning moon, rain and drought - and the rhythmic pattern of agriculture. These religions are also not static, not even within their consciousness of natural rhythms. They incorporate the ever-changing actual experience. For example, Sango, the Yoruba god of lightning, assumes responsibility for modern electrical processes. But, these characteristics are only true of some of the traditional African religions.
However, in truth, the commonalities of African religions are as follows:
Belief in a Supreme Being, or Creator, which is referred to by a myriad of names in various languages
No written scripture (holy texts are oral)
Correspondence with the higher being in times of great need (i.e. natural calamities, unexplained deaths)
Having a devout connection with their ancestors
Duality of self and gods
Most indigenous African religions have a dualistic concept of the person. In the Igbo language, a person is said to be composed of a body and a soul. In the Yoruba language, however, there seems to be a tripartite concept: in addition to body and soul, there is said to exist a "spirit" or an ori, an independent entity that mediates or otherwise interacts between the body and the soul.
Some religious systems have a specific devil-like figure (for example, Ekwensu) who is believed to be the opposite of God.
Virtue and vice
Virtue in African traditional religion is often connected with the communal aspect of life. Examples include social behaviors such as the respect for parents and elders, appropriately raising children, providing hospitality, and being honest, trustworthy and courageous.
In some ATRs, morality is associated with obedience or disobedience to God regarding the way a person or a community lives. For the Kikuyu, according to Mbiti, God, acting through the lesser deities, is believed to speak to and be capable of guiding the virtuous person as one's "conscience." But so could the Devil and the messengers. In indigenous African religions, such as the Azande religion, a person is said to have a good or bad conscience depending on whether he does the bidding of the God or the Devil.
Religious offices
African indigenous religions, like most indigenous religions, do not have a named and known founder, nor a sacred scripture. Often, such religions are oral traditions.
Priest
In some societies, there are intermediaries between individuals or whole communities and specific deities. Variously called Dibia, Babalawo, etc., the priest usually presides at the altar of a particular deity.
Healer
Practice of medicine is an important part of indigenous religion. Priests are reputed to have professional knowledge of illness (pathology), surgery, and pharmacology (roots, barks, leaves and herbs). Some of them are also reputed to diagnose and treat mental and psychological problems.
The role of a traditional healer is broader in some respects than that of a contemporary medical doctor. The healer advises in all aspects of life, including physical, psychological, spiritual, moral, and legal matters. He also understands the significance of ancestral spirits and the reality of witches.
Rainmaker
They are believed to be capable of bringing about or stopping rain, by manipulating the environment meteorologically (e.g., by burning particular kinds of woods or otherwise attempting to influence movement of clouds).
Holy places and headquarters of religious activities
While there are human made places (altars, shrines, temples, tombs), very often sacred space is located in nature (trees, groves, rocks, hills, mountains, caves, etc.).
These are some of the important centers of religious life: Nri-Igbo, Ile-Ife, Oyo, Dahomey, Benin City, Ouidah, Nsukka, Akan, Kanem-Bornu, Mali, and Igbo-Ukwu.
Liturgy and rituals
Rituals often occur according to the life cycle of the year. There are herding and hunting rituals as well as those marking the rhythm of agriculture and of human life. There are craft rituals, such as in smithing. There are rituals on building new homes, on the assumption of leadership, etc.
Individuality
Each deity has an its own rituals, including choice objects of sacrifice; preference for male or female priest-officer; time of day, week, month, or year to make required sacrifice; or specific costumes for priest and supplicant on ritual occasions.] Patronage
Some deities are perpetual patrons of specific trades and guilds. For example, in Haitian Vodou, Ogoun, the deity of metal, is patron of all professions that use metals as primary material of craft.
Libation
The living often honor ancestors by pouring a libation (paying homage), and thus giving them the first "taste" of a drink before the living consume itMagic, witchcraft, and sorcery
These are important, different but related, parts of beliefs about interactions between the natural and the supernatural, seen and unseen, worlds. Magicians, witches, shamans and sorcerers are said to have the skills to bring about or manipulate the relations between the two worlds. Abuse of this ability is widely condemned. Magic, witchcraft, and sorcery are parts of many indigenous religions.
Secret societies
They are important part of indigenous religion. Among traditional secret societies are hunting societies whose members are taught not only the physical methods, but also respect for the spiritual aspect of the hunt and use of honorable magical means to obtain important co-operation from the animal hunted.
Members are supposed to have been initiated into, and thus have access to, occultic powers hidden to non-members. Well known secret societies are Egbo, Nsibidi, Mau Mau, Ogboni, Sangbeto, etc.
Possession
Some spirits and deities are believed to "mount" some of their priests during special rituals. The possessed goes into a trance-like state, sometimes accompanied by speaking in "tongues" (i.e., uttering messages from the spirit that need to be interpreted to the audience). Possession is usually induced by drumming and dancing.
[Mythology
Many indigenous religions, like most religions, have elaborate stories that explain how the world was created, how culture and civilization came about, or what happens when a person dies. Other mythologies are meant to explain or enforce social conventions on issues relating to age, gender, class, or religious rituals. Myths are popular methods of education: they communicate religious knowledge and morality while amusing or frightening those who hear or read them. Examples of religions with elaborates mythologies include the native religion of the Yoruba people, see Yoruba mythology.
Characteristics of African Traditional Religion
As indicated above Africa is a vast continent; as a result one runs the risk of generalization. Yet there is a common thread that runs in indigenous values and experiences that show a kind of uniformity. It is that uniformity that we are going to explore in this survey. Religion in sub-Saharan Africa is made up of certain beliefs like any other religion. What are those beliefs?
African cosmological thought can be summarized as follows. In the first place, there is widespread belief in one God, who is known by various local names. He is a Supreme spirit, for this reason there are no images or visible representations of Him. He is recognized as the Creator of the world and all things there in. He is the source of all power. He is the keeper of life and death.
Next to God are the deities who derive their powers from God. In contrast to God, the deities or lesser deities may be treated with respect. They function in a way similar to angels in the Jewish and Christian cosmologies.
In the lower hierarchy are the ancestral spirits who are treated with reverence and awe. They are the souls of our forefathers who have walked in this world. Therefore, Africans believe that they are closer to God since they are dead. Thus the departed occupy an important position in African religion. In contrast that Africans serve their ancestor this is true. It is not worship as the west is made to believe. It can be seen as fellowship and hospitality. Paris says it well:
In African worldview there is no death in the sense of radical separation from either family or the tribal community. Rather, Africans believe that life is eternal and that its motion is not linear but cyclical … they are convinced that the temporal movement of human life is continuous cyclical process from the realm of the spirit to that history…. to speak of such process as death is a misnomer. Rather, departure from physical life marks a transition from the state of mortality to that of ancestral immortality. ( Paris:52)
Mbiti explains that the ancestors live on a realm of the sprit world, in a state of existence that he calls the “living dead”. According to Mbiti, that term connotes both continuity with and transition from temporal life. Interestingly enough, the “ancestor spirit” lives the same length of time as the time they were alive on earth. As Margaret Creel explains:
Ancestors retained their normal human passions and appetites, which had to be gratified in death as in life. Ancestors felt hungers and thirst. They became angry or happy depending on the behavior of their living “children.” The living dead were vindictive if neglected but propitious if shown respect. Just as filial loyalty prevents one from allowing a parent to go hungry, “so must food be offered to the ancestors. (See Paris:1995,52)
According to African traditional religion, ancestors serve as intermediaries between their families and the divinities. Awolalu says ancestors…”are the guardians of family affairs, traditions, ethics and activities….They are regarded as presiding spiritually over the welfare of the family.”(Awolalu : 1979, p.61)
In the African cosmological world, in addition to the ancestors, there are other spirits or mystical powers recognized and reckoned with for their ability to aid or harm man (Opku: 10).” Included in these agents are witchcraft, magic and sorcery. Witchcraft is used in a broad text in African religiosity to mean the harmful employment of mystical power in all its different manifestation (Mbiti, 202). As a result of this, whenever anything happens the blame is cast at the door step of witchcraft. As Awolalu defines it:
… a witch enables her to perform supernatural powers in consequence of forming a league with the devil or evil spirits, and through such an evil alliance and co-operation the possession of craft which enables her perform supernatural acts which, in most cases, are destructive (Awolalu, p. 80).
Idowu explains it better when he says:
Witches are human beings of very strong determined wills with diabolical Bent,.. (they) are the veritably wicked ones who derive sadistic satisfaction From bringing misfortune upon other people…. (See Awolalu, p. 80).
Finally, African traditional religion reveres nature. It does not mean that the African cosmological world worships sun, rocks and trees. As Opoku explains, “animals and plants are said to have played a crucial role in the survival of the forebears…. Thus, a sacred relationship is formed between these objects.” (Opoku,10). This sacred bond is not to be confused with worship as some Western critics have supposed.
Conclusion
In this essay the author explores some ways that African traditional religions have been misrepresented in Western literature. First, most African religions believe in the existence of one God. The difference between the Western and African idea of God may be understood as a difference of names due to languages. Another major point that obscures a true understanding and acceptance of African beliefs is the false Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief that Africans worship many gods and that they have no real sense of the concept of one God that created all existence. Africans are erroneously portrayed as worshiping many gods including trees, rocks, rivers, and inanimate objects. Western scholars have confused the words reverence with worship. Africans never pretend to worship anything but one God. Finally, Africans are described as having a polytheistic religion. In African cosmology it is supposed that sundry deities are worshipped. This is not true. The deities are perceived as intermediaries just as angels in the Judeo-Christian world. As Uka (1991) explains “The general belief about the divinities is that they are created by God to perform specific roles.” Their status is “mediatorial” meaning that deities are intermediaries between God and man, “a means to an end not and ends themselves. Their powers are limited to the performance of specific functions assigned to them by God. None of them enjoys unlimited powers ascribed to God.” (Uka, 1991:45). Thus, this essay serves as a call to a reappraise African traditional religion rather than relying on falsified interpretations of African religion that are being parroted by the news media and western scholars.
Search the web
Custom Search
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Democracy Not Democrazy
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which by far the greatest number are poor and miserable." - Adam Smith, 1776 The late Afro-beat maestrop Fela Anikulapo-Kuti is rightly credited with the coinage democrazy. In his unique style Fela had described in song in a rather pervert version of what was supposed to be democracy as practiced in Nigeria. His subject of joke was the Second republic government led by Alhaji Shehu Shagari who took over from the military government of general Olusegun Obasanjo. Fela and Obasanjo though kinsmen from Abeokuta were not known to be the best of friends. If the musician were alive today and cared to react to Obasanjo's performance as a civilian president, he would in his weird manner have led a protest march to deliver 'democracy' in a mock coffin to the president with a laconic song for effect.
The hype for democracy in Nigeria appears to have induced high hopes of grand ambitions. Typical of a casino phenomenon that many have come to equate democracy with a vending machine. They expect it to dispense the goodies of life once the people have cast their votes. Nigeria's nascent (this word again!) democracy that was activated on May 29, 1999 appears not to have delivered on its promise of the people's EL Dorado.
Democracy, for good or ill has become a popular political phenomenon. It lays much emphasis on essential principles such as regular election, majority rule and cooperation among competing parties and interest groups to attain consensus. The basic tenets of democracy often espoused include equality, sovereignty of the people, respect for human life, the rule of law, freedom of individuals and demand of accountability from public office holders to the people. These expectations unfortunately run counter to the true character of a politician defined by The Longman Dictionary as "a person concerned with party politics for his own personal selfish purpose or gain." This seems to tally with the sad reality that has become of politicians in Nigeria so far. Fela's pervert version, democrazy, appears a more suitable description of Nigeria's special brand of government.
People's yearning for freedom and the good life has often fanned the glamour for democracy. Nigeria's situation could not have been more demanding after a suffocating era of military dictatorship and misrule. The citizens had become desperate for democracy with all its benefits. In the hurried swerve of transition the electorates turned out en mass to cast their votes as a welcome relief from military repression to a democratic rendezvous.
The exercise produced a team, as it were, who lacking in the requisite experience needed some orientation on how to operate the democratic machinery. Hence the much vaunted sermon on the learning process for the elected political practitioners. Since they seem to have an open-ended syllabus it has been difficult to decide with certainty when to interrupt their "lessons" for some "tests." The result of such tests should expectedly provide bearings geared towards facilitating the delivery of the much desired democracy dividend for the generality of the people who elected them.
There is a growing mass disenchantment with the performance of the fledging democracy and many are wondering whether we have not adopted the wrong brand. This apparent dilemma has become a source of great concern and indeed frustration to majority of the people. So far the Nigerian people appear to have been short-changed. Not with the torrents of media reports of official misdemeanour and alleged corruption and primitive acquisition by public officers. Against this background, the drab mood and frustration of the populace is understandable.
It has become clear that the mere facts of election and the rule of the majority are not sufficient to guarantee the ideals of democracy. Both are no doubt central principles to the democratic process. Elections avail the electorates the freedom to choose between the alternatives offered by political parties. Majority rule presumes a decision-making process generally swayed in favour of a simple majority of those eligible and present in a body. These supposed simple models of attaining consensus can and indeed get strained by the existence of factions and varied interest groups. Such generates intense competition and rivalry. The inevitable existence of diverse units of social identity and interest demands cooperation as a mark of civic responsibility in order to attain consensus for the common good.
The expectations from a democracy can be rather tempting. It amounts to wishful thinking for instance to imagine that by adopting democracy, Nigeria would have acquired a magic elixir to resolve all of her political, social, economic, administrative, and cultural problems. If only it were so. The reality today, after three years of democratic rule (or misrule), is the confirmation of some salient facts we shall do well to note and accept.
First, "democracies are not necessarily efficient economically than are other forms of government. especially. during the transition from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government." Immediate fallouts can be seen in the reaction of elites to real or imagined threats to the rights and privileges they enjoyed under previous regimes. They may initiate misinformation of the populace and sometime outright sabotage of the system.
This is very much evident in Nigeria. However, the government can help make democracy survive and blossom by educating and encouraging the citizens to understand and appreciate the fact of seeing themselves as stakeholders in a stable polity. Democracy cannot exist let alone flourish without the active participation of the people. After all democracy, in the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, is "the government of the people by the people and for the people." Second, "democracies are not necessarily more efficient administratively." The demand of consensus management inhibits speed and efficiency because of the sheer number of people to be consulted. The costs of getting things done could be quite high because of multiple stations of "settlements". We are witnesses to the ridiculous levels public officers have demonstrated this aspect in Nigeria. This include the high turn-over of heads of legislative Houses at the national and state levels in some cases producing classic shows that will make comic best seller list. The elevation of blackmail, thuggery, assassination, indiscriminate threat of impeachment, and the all conquering "GMG" (cash trafficking in huge polyester sack) as tools and arts of governance. Politicians have displayed acts that seem to suggest what Fela described as the "demonstration of craze", where supposed sane persons behave as if driven by unseen demonic forces with faculty imbalance and a distorted view of life.
Third, "democracies are not likely to appear more orderly, consensual, stable, or governable than the autocracies they replace". Again popular satisfaction with the new democratic governments performance may not even be higher than the regimes they replace. This in part is a by-product of democratic freedom of expression and a reflection of continuing disagreement over new rules and institutions. The necessary impositions of a democratic process may be sometimes ambiguous in nature and uncertain, in effect, requiring a learning process for the participants to become acquainted with its operation. The struggles and intense rivalries by competing groups are inevitable in a democracy as new rules and institutions are tested and new bargains sought. These tumults and seemingly anti-system tendencies brought about by the democratic change should be expected and must not be seen as an attack on persons, tribes, religion or a failure of the democratic consolidation. Rather it should be accepted as a wake-up call and challenge to make progress and move the nation forward. What is important is the willingness of the parties, groups and persons to play by the general rules of bounded improbability contingent consent.
It is perhaps pertinent at this point to comment on the near paranoid search for economic salvation the government is appallingly pursuing abroad. This foreign pursuit that is heavily skewed to the western capitalist world deviously assumes an automatic correlation between democracy and capitalism, an unrestrained wealth creation through the supposed freestyle swing of market forces with least government intervention. If anything, such liaison is not sacrosanct. Hardly can we find a country that practices an unguided reign of free enterprise as postulated by Adam Smith. Indeed the assumptions of a wholly free market driven economy happen not to be those of the real society inhabited by humans. Not even in the U.S.A.! We may recall the often-near frenzy reactions of the American authorities to rising oil prices. The open and televised intimidation of OPEC members by the US authorities to make adjustments in oil production to suit the latter with little regard to the wishes, desires and interest of the former should serve as eye opener to our policy makers here. Such glaring example from the supposed champion of democracy which patent we tend to imitate clearly demonstrates the wisdom in putting the citizens interest first and above foreign interests and unguided market forces. It does follow that the frivolous globe trotting, the unbridled experimentation and sheepish adoption of foreign prescriptions of the free enterprise doctrine may not necessarily further the consolidation of our democracy. If anything it may even scuttle or derail it. A cautionary note has been sounded elsewhere that our, "Government should not be bemused by the seductive arguments of pro-market forces which ultimately reinforces inequality, injustice and dismantle the capacity for social solidarity." Government is thereby "disempowered and become unwilling debt collectors for international capital while millions of people are condemned to misery without end." In summary, democracy may not necessarily bring about instant economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency, political harmony, unbridled freedom, or guarantee a strong, virile and united Nigeria. At best we can hope for the emergence of political institutions that can peacefully compete to form alliances and influence public policy. A system that can channel social and economic conflicts through regular and predictable procedures with sufficient linkages for appropriate harmonization for the common good. And where elected public officers as representatives of diverse constituencies commit themselves to collective course of action for the people and the nation.
Democracy is not a system of immediate actions and effects. It will not yield the desired dividends overnight like yeast in flour. If we expect to benefit from democracy we must be prepared to bear the fatigue of the gestation period. We must all take the long view of a democratic process that holds great prospect of eventually delivering on the promise of freedom and the good life for the people. And this can happen gradually and certainly in the long run, if we are not all dead!
The hype for democracy in Nigeria appears to have induced high hopes of grand ambitions. Typical of a casino phenomenon that many have come to equate democracy with a vending machine. They expect it to dispense the goodies of life once the people have cast their votes. Nigeria's nascent (this word again!) democracy that was activated on May 29, 1999 appears not to have delivered on its promise of the people's EL Dorado.
Democracy, for good or ill has become a popular political phenomenon. It lays much emphasis on essential principles such as regular election, majority rule and cooperation among competing parties and interest groups to attain consensus. The basic tenets of democracy often espoused include equality, sovereignty of the people, respect for human life, the rule of law, freedom of individuals and demand of accountability from public office holders to the people. These expectations unfortunately run counter to the true character of a politician defined by The Longman Dictionary as "a person concerned with party politics for his own personal selfish purpose or gain." This seems to tally with the sad reality that has become of politicians in Nigeria so far. Fela's pervert version, democrazy, appears a more suitable description of Nigeria's special brand of government.
People's yearning for freedom and the good life has often fanned the glamour for democracy. Nigeria's situation could not have been more demanding after a suffocating era of military dictatorship and misrule. The citizens had become desperate for democracy with all its benefits. In the hurried swerve of transition the electorates turned out en mass to cast their votes as a welcome relief from military repression to a democratic rendezvous.
The exercise produced a team, as it were, who lacking in the requisite experience needed some orientation on how to operate the democratic machinery. Hence the much vaunted sermon on the learning process for the elected political practitioners. Since they seem to have an open-ended syllabus it has been difficult to decide with certainty when to interrupt their "lessons" for some "tests." The result of such tests should expectedly provide bearings geared towards facilitating the delivery of the much desired democracy dividend for the generality of the people who elected them.
There is a growing mass disenchantment with the performance of the fledging democracy and many are wondering whether we have not adopted the wrong brand. This apparent dilemma has become a source of great concern and indeed frustration to majority of the people. So far the Nigerian people appear to have been short-changed. Not with the torrents of media reports of official misdemeanour and alleged corruption and primitive acquisition by public officers. Against this background, the drab mood and frustration of the populace is understandable.
It has become clear that the mere facts of election and the rule of the majority are not sufficient to guarantee the ideals of democracy. Both are no doubt central principles to the democratic process. Elections avail the electorates the freedom to choose between the alternatives offered by political parties. Majority rule presumes a decision-making process generally swayed in favour of a simple majority of those eligible and present in a body. These supposed simple models of attaining consensus can and indeed get strained by the existence of factions and varied interest groups. Such generates intense competition and rivalry. The inevitable existence of diverse units of social identity and interest demands cooperation as a mark of civic responsibility in order to attain consensus for the common good.
The expectations from a democracy can be rather tempting. It amounts to wishful thinking for instance to imagine that by adopting democracy, Nigeria would have acquired a magic elixir to resolve all of her political, social, economic, administrative, and cultural problems. If only it were so. The reality today, after three years of democratic rule (or misrule), is the confirmation of some salient facts we shall do well to note and accept.
First, "democracies are not necessarily efficient economically than are other forms of government. especially. during the transition from a non-democratic to a democratic form of government." Immediate fallouts can be seen in the reaction of elites to real or imagined threats to the rights and privileges they enjoyed under previous regimes. They may initiate misinformation of the populace and sometime outright sabotage of the system.
This is very much evident in Nigeria. However, the government can help make democracy survive and blossom by educating and encouraging the citizens to understand and appreciate the fact of seeing themselves as stakeholders in a stable polity. Democracy cannot exist let alone flourish without the active participation of the people. After all democracy, in the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, is "the government of the people by the people and for the people." Second, "democracies are not necessarily more efficient administratively." The demand of consensus management inhibits speed and efficiency because of the sheer number of people to be consulted. The costs of getting things done could be quite high because of multiple stations of "settlements". We are witnesses to the ridiculous levels public officers have demonstrated this aspect in Nigeria. This include the high turn-over of heads of legislative Houses at the national and state levels in some cases producing classic shows that will make comic best seller list. The elevation of blackmail, thuggery, assassination, indiscriminate threat of impeachment, and the all conquering "GMG" (cash trafficking in huge polyester sack) as tools and arts of governance. Politicians have displayed acts that seem to suggest what Fela described as the "demonstration of craze", where supposed sane persons behave as if driven by unseen demonic forces with faculty imbalance and a distorted view of life.
Third, "democracies are not likely to appear more orderly, consensual, stable, or governable than the autocracies they replace". Again popular satisfaction with the new democratic governments performance may not even be higher than the regimes they replace. This in part is a by-product of democratic freedom of expression and a reflection of continuing disagreement over new rules and institutions. The necessary impositions of a democratic process may be sometimes ambiguous in nature and uncertain, in effect, requiring a learning process for the participants to become acquainted with its operation. The struggles and intense rivalries by competing groups are inevitable in a democracy as new rules and institutions are tested and new bargains sought. These tumults and seemingly anti-system tendencies brought about by the democratic change should be expected and must not be seen as an attack on persons, tribes, religion or a failure of the democratic consolidation. Rather it should be accepted as a wake-up call and challenge to make progress and move the nation forward. What is important is the willingness of the parties, groups and persons to play by the general rules of bounded improbability contingent consent.
It is perhaps pertinent at this point to comment on the near paranoid search for economic salvation the government is appallingly pursuing abroad. This foreign pursuit that is heavily skewed to the western capitalist world deviously assumes an automatic correlation between democracy and capitalism, an unrestrained wealth creation through the supposed freestyle swing of market forces with least government intervention. If anything, such liaison is not sacrosanct. Hardly can we find a country that practices an unguided reign of free enterprise as postulated by Adam Smith. Indeed the assumptions of a wholly free market driven economy happen not to be those of the real society inhabited by humans. Not even in the U.S.A.! We may recall the often-near frenzy reactions of the American authorities to rising oil prices. The open and televised intimidation of OPEC members by the US authorities to make adjustments in oil production to suit the latter with little regard to the wishes, desires and interest of the former should serve as eye opener to our policy makers here. Such glaring example from the supposed champion of democracy which patent we tend to imitate clearly demonstrates the wisdom in putting the citizens interest first and above foreign interests and unguided market forces. It does follow that the frivolous globe trotting, the unbridled experimentation and sheepish adoption of foreign prescriptions of the free enterprise doctrine may not necessarily further the consolidation of our democracy. If anything it may even scuttle or derail it. A cautionary note has been sounded elsewhere that our, "Government should not be bemused by the seductive arguments of pro-market forces which ultimately reinforces inequality, injustice and dismantle the capacity for social solidarity." Government is thereby "disempowered and become unwilling debt collectors for international capital while millions of people are condemned to misery without end." In summary, democracy may not necessarily bring about instant economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency, political harmony, unbridled freedom, or guarantee a strong, virile and united Nigeria. At best we can hope for the emergence of political institutions that can peacefully compete to form alliances and influence public policy. A system that can channel social and economic conflicts through regular and predictable procedures with sufficient linkages for appropriate harmonization for the common good. And where elected public officers as representatives of diverse constituencies commit themselves to collective course of action for the people and the nation.
Democracy is not a system of immediate actions and effects. It will not yield the desired dividends overnight like yeast in flour. If we expect to benefit from democracy we must be prepared to bear the fatigue of the gestation period. We must all take the long view of a democratic process that holds great prospect of eventually delivering on the promise of freedom and the good life for the people. And this can happen gradually and certainly in the long run, if we are not all dead!
FAITH PROFILE: RUTH AND EXAMPLE OF OBEDIENCE
Wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God" (Ruth 1:16).For centuries, men and women uniting in holy matrimony have looked to Ruth's famous words as a standard of unfailing devotion to each other. Although we live more than 3,000 years after Ruth, we can almost feel her emotions as we hear these words repeated in the modern marriage ceremony. Truly her words are timeless.Few examples can compare to that of Ruth's devotion to Naomi. Ruth's loyal devotion can inspire us to remain faithful to God, His truth and His Church.
Blessing out of affliction
Ruth's story begins in Bethlehem, in Judah, when a father and mother and their two sons strike out for greener pastures. Their homeland and people were suffering from a severe shortage of food and water.This famine didn't come upon the land just by chance. There were reasons for these dark days in Israel, then ruled by judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).One Bible scholar describes this epoch: "The period of the judges was between the initial conquest of Palestine under Joshua and the establishment of the monarchy under Saul. It was a time of moral and political chaos in Israel with no strong central government or leader. The people repeatedly turned away from God and neighboring peoples constantly harassed and invaded the disorganized nation" (F.B. Huey, Jr., The Expositor's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 509).God had warned that, if the Israelites forgot His covenant, He would allow persecution and starvation and other physical deprivations (See Deuteronomy 28).It was during such a stressful time that the members of a humble family in Israel decided they must
live as aliens in a foreign land, Moab, on the other side of the Jordan River.There was little food in Bethlehem and bleak prospects of garnering any. On the other hand, Moab was a fertile region with plenty of rain, and that land provided a haven for many who were hungry.So it was that Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion, all members of an Israelitish family, packed their belongings and headed east to a fertile garden in Moab. There they settled and were blessed to find food and shelter.More misfortuneBut time and chance take their toll on everyone, even faithful Elimelech's family. Tragedy struck. First Elimelech died, apparently before his time.Suffering from the shock of life's frailty, at the same time bearing the weight of responsibility of carrying on the family name, both sons took Moabite wives.
Mahlon wed Ruth; Chilion married Orpah (Ruth 1:4, 4:10).
Misfortune struck again, and Naomi lost her two sons. Naomi was disheartened and determined to return to Bethlehem, for "she had heard in the coun-try of Moab that the LORD had visited His people in giving them bread" (Ruth 1:6). She also realized that, in a foreign land, a wife without her husband as provider would find herself in desperate straits.At first, Naomi assumed her daughters-in-law should return with her (Ruth 1:7). But then, as she considered her plight and options, she realized that her faithful Moabite daughters-in-law would undergo extreme difficulty finding new husbands in Israel. She urged them to remain in their land with their kinsmen and religion (Ruth 1:8, 9).Ruth and Orpah both could have returned to Bethlehem with Naomi. But only Ruth chose to remain with her, even though her prospects of finding a husband were not good and she would live as a widow in a foreign land. Ruth's determination to stay with Naomi was eloquent testimony to the sterling example Naomi had set for her daughters-in-law.Naomi's heartfelt urging that Ruth and Orpah return to Moab had to be a touching scene. Naomi told Ruth: "'Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.' But Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me'" (Ruth 1:15-17).Orpah returned to her homeland while Naomi and Ruth continued on the road to Bethlehem. Upon their arrival, the town buzzed with excitement, recognizing that one of the two women was Naomi. The women exclaimed, "'Is this Naomi?' But she said unto them, 'Do not call me Naomi [meaning "pleasant"]; call me Mara ["bitterly dealt with"], for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD has brought me home again empty. The Almighty has afflicted me'" (Ruth 1:19-21).So it was that faithful Naomi returned to Bethlehem with her Moabite daughter-in-law as the barley harvest was in full swing. Although Ruth couldn't know it then, her future blessings would spring from these afflictions.
Misfortune struck again, and Naomi lost her two sons. Naomi was disheartened and determined to return to Bethlehem, for "she had heard in the coun-try of Moab that the LORD had visited His people in giving them bread" (Ruth 1:6). She also realized that, in a foreign land, a wife without her husband as provider would find herself in desperate straits.At first, Naomi assumed her daughters-in-law should return with her (Ruth 1:7). But then, as she considered her plight and options, she realized that her faithful Moabite daughters-in-law would undergo extreme difficulty finding new husbands in Israel. She urged them to remain in their land with their kinsmen and religion (Ruth 1:8, 9).Ruth and Orpah both could have returned to Bethlehem with Naomi. But only Ruth chose to remain with her, even though her prospects of finding a husband were not good and she would live as a widow in a foreign land. Ruth's determination to stay with Naomi was eloquent testimony to the sterling example Naomi had set for her daughters-in-law.Naomi's heartfelt urging that Ruth and Orpah return to Moab had to be a touching scene. Naomi told Ruth: "'Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.' But Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me'" (Ruth 1:15-17).Orpah returned to her homeland while Naomi and Ruth continued on the road to Bethlehem. Upon their arrival, the town buzzed with excitement, recognizing that one of the two women was Naomi. The women exclaimed, "'Is this Naomi?' But she said unto them, 'Do not call me Naomi [meaning "pleasant"]; call me Mara ["bitterly dealt with"], for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD has brought me home again empty. The Almighty has afflicted me'" (Ruth 1:19-21).So it was that faithful Naomi returned to Bethlehem with her Moabite daughter-in-law as the barley harvest was in full swing. Although Ruth couldn't know it then, her future blessings would spring from these afflictions.
Finding favor at harvesttime
The time of the return of Naomi and Ruth to Bethlehem was providential, for it was harvesttime and they had no food. The barley harvest and subsequent wheat harvest were their best chance for finding sustenance. It was during these gatherings that Ruth labored in Boaz's field. Ruth's attitude while laboring in the fields, gathering and winnowing grain, served as a model for later generations of Israelite women.Little wonder that the book of Ruth would be read in synagogues centuries later during the Feast of Weeks, a yearly festival that concluded the wheat harvest (A.S. Geden, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 4, p. 2528). This celebration was also known as Pentecost ("fiftieth [day]") to the New Testament Church (Acts 2), and it prophetically symbolized Jesus Christ's harvest of Christian lives (Matthew 9:36-38).Ruth, in deference to her mother-in-law Naomi, requested permission to go alone into the fields to gather leftover grain: "Please let me go to the field, and glean heads of grain after him in whose sight I may find favor."Naomi replied to Ruth: "Go, my daughter" (Ruth 2:2).
The Scripture provided a precedent for the custom of gleaning. "The law expressly allowed the poor the right to glean in the fields (i.e., in the corners of the fields; Leviticus 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21), but the owners of the fields were not always cooperative. A hard day's work under the hot sun frequently netted only a small amount of grain" (F.B. Huey Jr., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 527).God had guided Ruth to the field of Elimelech's kinsman, Boaz. Boaz's neighbors well knew his character, holding him in high esteem (Ruth 2:4). The very word Boaz means "in him is strength" or "man of strength." He lived up to his name.
Good advice
So it was that Boaz met Ruth, and would protect her and provided for her. "Then Boaz said to Ruth, 'You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women. Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them.'"Then she fell on her face, bowed down to the ground, and said to him, 'Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?'"And Boaz answered and said to her, 'It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before. The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge" (Ruth 2:8-12).Boaz had instructed the young men working for him to let Ruth glean not just in the corners but even among the sheaves, where she could gather much more grain than was otherwise possible. He also told them to drop some wheat on the ground for her to find.Gleaning turned out to be far more productive for Ruth than she had imagined possible. She brought home to Naomi a good supply of winnowed grain, enough for several weeks. In those times, someone could expect to glean only a few pounds of grain per day. Her amount from gleaning shows the regard the young men had for Boaz and his instructions to allow some of their harvested grain to fall to the ground in Ruth's path. It also speaks well of Ruth's diligence.Naomi was pleased with such favor shown by Boaz to her daughter-in-law Ruth: "Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not forsaken His kindness to the living and the dead! The man is a relative of ours, one of our near kinsmen" (Ruth 2:20).Ruth honored Naomi's words of encouragement and gleaned "until the end" of the barley and wheat harvests (Ruth 2:23).
So it was that Boaz met Ruth, and would protect her and provided for her. "Then Boaz said to Ruth, 'You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women. Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them.'"Then she fell on her face, bowed down to the ground, and said to him, 'Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?'"And Boaz answered and said to her, 'It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before. The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge" (Ruth 2:8-12).Boaz had instructed the young men working for him to let Ruth glean not just in the corners but even among the sheaves, where she could gather much more grain than was otherwise possible. He also told them to drop some wheat on the ground for her to find.Gleaning turned out to be far more productive for Ruth than she had imagined possible. She brought home to Naomi a good supply of winnowed grain, enough for several weeks. In those times, someone could expect to glean only a few pounds of grain per day. Her amount from gleaning shows the regard the young men had for Boaz and his instructions to allow some of their harvested grain to fall to the ground in Ruth's path. It also speaks well of Ruth's diligence.Naomi was pleased with such favor shown by Boaz to her daughter-in-law Ruth: "Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not forsaken His kindness to the living and the dead! The man is a relative of ours, one of our near kinsmen" (Ruth 2:20).Ruth honored Naomi's words of encouragement and gleaned "until the end" of the barley and wheat harvests (Ruth 2:23).
Redemption and blessings
Naomi began to see, once again, that God had not forgotten her. This was a critical time for her and Ruth, one that held exciting promise, especially for the daughter-in-law. Boaz was indeed a kinsman of Elimelech, Naomi's dead husband."Under the Levirate law (referred to by Naomi in Ruth 1:1-13), when a man died childless his brother was bound to raise an heir to him by the widow. This law extended to the next of kin, hence Naomi's plan. Ruth, by her action in verse 7, was claiming this right" (David and Pat Alexander, Eerdmans' Handbook to the Bible, pp. 227, 228).Naomi's plan included careful instructions for Ruth, and her words enhanced the aura of romance: "My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Now Boaz, whose young women you were with, is he not our kinsman? In fact, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Therefore wash yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking."Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do. And [Ruth] said to her, 'All that you say to me I will do'" (Ruth 3:1-5).What a trusting attitude Ruth had. Remember, she was not an Israelite; she was a Moabite, a gentile. God was working out His great purpose through Ruth, whose heart and mind were those of a spiritual Israelite led by God's Holy Spirit (compare Romans 2:29 with 2 Corinthians 3:3).
Boaz would not dishonor Ruth
Let's understand the literal meaning of "uncover his feet" (Ruth 3:4). The reader should be aware that the sexually permissive society in which we live is a far cry from the social values of Ruth's time."Those who interpret a sexual relation in the events reflect their twentieth-century cultural conditioning of sexual permissiveness. They fail to appreciate the element of Ruth's trust that Boaz would not dishonor her whom he wanted for his wife. They fail to appreciate the cultural taboos of Ruth's time that would have prevented a man of Boaz's position from taking advantage of Ruth, thereby destroying her reputation and perhaps endangering his own" (Huey, p. 538).
The moral character of Boaz and Ruth remains intact.
Boaz knew of another kinsman more closely related to Ruth than he. Boaz, manifesting exemplary integrity, addressed the situation straightforwardly: "There is a kinsman nearer than I," he told Ruth. "Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a near kinsman for you-good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the LORD lives!" (Ruth 3:12, 13).The unfolding drama starkly contrasts the two men. The nearer relative reacted agreeably to Boaz's mention of Naomi's land of inheritance, but, when Boaz noted the added responsibility of redeeming Ruth's inheritance, the man quickly declined. "And the near kinsman said, 'I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it. Buy it for yourself'" (Ruth 4:6, 8).Today, as we read the account of Ruth, we know that the closest relative unknowingly denied himself a great opportunity. Boaz not only redeemed all of Naomi's inheritance, he claimed Ruth's as well."Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place.
Let's understand the literal meaning of "uncover his feet" (Ruth 3:4). The reader should be aware that the sexually permissive society in which we live is a far cry from the social values of Ruth's time."Those who interpret a sexual relation in the events reflect their twentieth-century cultural conditioning of sexual permissiveness. They fail to appreciate the element of Ruth's trust that Boaz would not dishonor her whom he wanted for his wife. They fail to appreciate the cultural taboos of Ruth's time that would have prevented a man of Boaz's position from taking advantage of Ruth, thereby destroying her reputation and perhaps endangering his own" (Huey, p. 538).
The moral character of Boaz and Ruth remains intact.
Boaz knew of another kinsman more closely related to Ruth than he. Boaz, manifesting exemplary integrity, addressed the situation straightforwardly: "There is a kinsman nearer than I," he told Ruth. "Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a near kinsman for you-good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the LORD lives!" (Ruth 3:12, 13).The unfolding drama starkly contrasts the two men. The nearer relative reacted agreeably to Boaz's mention of Naomi's land of inheritance, but, when Boaz noted the added responsibility of redeeming Ruth's inheritance, the man quickly declined. "And the near kinsman said, 'I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it. Buy it for yourself'" (Ruth 4:6, 8).Today, as we read the account of Ruth, we know that the closest relative unknowingly denied himself a great opportunity. Boaz not only redeemed all of Naomi's inheritance, he claimed Ruth's as well."Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place.
You are witnesses this day.
And all the people said, 'We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman'" (Ruth 4:10-12).So God blessed Naomi and Ruth through Boaz. Boaz took Ruth as his wife, and she bore him a son. Then Naomi's friends said to her: "Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman [redeemer]; and may his name be famous in Israel!" (Ruth 4:14).Ruth became a forebear of JesusGod blessed Ruth's faithfulness with her son, whom she named Obed. It was through Obed that Ruth became the great-grandmother of King David and direct ancestor of our Savior, Jesus Christ.Who would have thought Naomi would return to Bethlehem with only her Moabite daughter-in-law, Ruth? Who could have guessed that Ruth would figure in the lineage of Jesus Christ? No human being could have worked out this scenario. Faith in God and God's purpose contribute to such miraculous results.Had Ruth, a Moabitess, not proved faithful to her Israelite mother-in-law, she would not have returned with her, nor would Ruth have met and married Boaz, nor would she have had a son, Obed, who would become an ancestor of David and Jesus Christ.Think for a moment all that worked against such an extraordinary outcome. By chance, Ruth met Naomi's son, Mahlon, whose family was forced by hardship to live as resident aliens in her country of Moab. By chance, she married Mahlon. By chance, her father-in-law, her brother-in-law and her husband all died in her homeland.By chance, she insisted on returning with Naomi to Israel, to live as an alien in a strange land, away from her family, relatives, religion, homeland. By chance, she met Boaz and gained the opportunity to be redeemed and married.By chance, Boaz married her, and together they had a son who figured in the direct lineage of the very Son of God.Or did all of this occur by chance? To the casual observer, it might seem as if this all happened by chance. But, for those who live by faith-the same faith that Jesus Christ exercised here on earth-it becomes obvious that these miraculous events were directed by Almighty God. Ruth defied all the odds, and, even though she was a gentile, figures directly in the physical lineage of our Savior.Ruth's faithful example extends far beyond her physical lineage. She figures prominently as a forerunner of spiritual Israel, the Church of God. She typifies the Old Testament prophecy to Abraham of the New Covenant Church, which would include gentiles and Israelites alike: "And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" through Jesus Christ (Genesis 12:3).
Ruth's example acknowledged
Ruth's relationship to God while living among Israelites is aptly described by Peter in the New Testament when God gave the first gentiles His Holy Spirit: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34, 35).God's impartiality is a bountiful blessing that neither Ruth, Boaz, nor Naomi could know during their time. But we are privileged to know such inspiring truths.Ruth's example of faith was customarily recited in the temple and later in the synagogues during the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost. Her example helps to signify our role and salvation in God's Church.For instance, in Leviticus 23, God identifies two loaves of leavened bread offered during the Feast of Weeks: "You shall bring from your habitations two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven. They are the firstfruits to the LORD" (Leviticus 23:17).These two loaves of leavened bread represent, at once, God's faithful disciples in both the old and new dispensations, but they also represent the two separate and now fused races of people who comprise the Church: gentiles and Israelites.The leaven signifies our human nature, in a general sense, and the sin that so easily besets us (compare 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7 with Matthew 16:12 and Hebrews 12:1). The baked loaves show that all God's people, whether gentile or Israelite, whether part of the old or new dispensation, will have their faith forged through the fiery trials experienced in this life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 1 Peter 1:7).
Ruth's relationship to God while living among Israelites is aptly described by Peter in the New Testament when God gave the first gentiles His Holy Spirit: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34, 35).God's impartiality is a bountiful blessing that neither Ruth, Boaz, nor Naomi could know during their time. But we are privileged to know such inspiring truths.Ruth's example of faith was customarily recited in the temple and later in the synagogues during the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost. Her example helps to signify our role and salvation in God's Church.For instance, in Leviticus 23, God identifies two loaves of leavened bread offered during the Feast of Weeks: "You shall bring from your habitations two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven. They are the firstfruits to the LORD" (Leviticus 23:17).These two loaves of leavened bread represent, at once, God's faithful disciples in both the old and new dispensations, but they also represent the two separate and now fused races of people who comprise the Church: gentiles and Israelites.The leaven signifies our human nature, in a general sense, and the sin that so easily besets us (compare 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7 with Matthew 16:12 and Hebrews 12:1). The baked loaves show that all God's people, whether gentile or Israelite, whether part of the old or new dispensation, will have their faith forged through the fiery trials experienced in this life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 1 Peter 1:7).
The focus of the book of Ruth highlights the barley and wheat harvests in Palestine, a time of reaping rewards from hard work and a foretaste of humanity's spiritual redemption. Even Bethlehem means "the house of bread." This motif shows God's strict adherence to detail. But, in a broader sense, God's prophetic plan is revealed through the story of Ruth and its correlation to the entire New Testament.It is inspiring to read the contrast of Ruth's faith to that of the Israel of her time.
Her undying devotion to Naomi and her redemption by Boaz attest to her humble obedience that transcends time, race and culture. Christians all over the world should learn from this woman who beyond every challenge proved that it is good to be humble.
PROFILE OF FAITH: RUTH AND EXAMPLE OF OBEDIENCE
Wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God" (Ruth 1:16).For centuries, men and women uniting in holy matrimony have looked to Ruth's famous words as a standard of unfailing devotion to each other. Although we live more than 3,000 years after Ruth, we can almost feel her emotions as we hear these words repeated in the modern marriage ceremony. Truly her words are timeless.Few examples can compare to that of Ruth's devotion to Naomi. Ruth's loyal devotion can inspire us to remain faithful to God, His truth and His Church.Blessing out of affliction
Ruth's story begins in Bethlehem, in Judah, when a father and mother and their two sons strike out for greener pastures. Their homeland and people were suffering from a severe shortage of food and water.This famine didn't come upon the land just by chance. There were reasons for these dark days in Israel, then ruled by judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).One Bible scholar describes this epoch: "The period of the judges was between the initial conquest of Palestine under Joshua and the establishment of the monarchy under Saul. It was a time of moral and political chaos in Israel with no strong central government or leader. The people repeatedly turned away from God and neighboring peoples constantly harassed and invaded the disorganized nation" (F.B. Huey, Jr., The Expositor's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 509).God had warned that, if the Israelites forgot His covenant, He would allow persecution and starvation and other physical deprivations (See Deuteronomy 28).It was during such a stressful time that the members of a humble family in Israel decided they must live as aliens in a foreign land, Moab, on the other side of the Jordan River.There was little food in Bethlehem and bleak prospects of garnering any. On the other hand, Moab was a fertile region with plenty of rain, and that land provided a haven for many who were hungry.So it was that Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion, all members of an Israelitish family, packed their belongings and headed east to a fertile garden in Moab. There they settled and were blessed to find food and shelter.More misfortuneBut time and chance take their toll on everyone, even faithful Elimelech's family. Tragedy struck. First Elimelech died, apparently before his time.Suffering from the shock of life's frailty, at the same time bearing the weight of responsibility of carrying on the family name, both sons took Moabite wives. Mahlon wed Ruth; Chilion married Orpah (Ruth 1:4, 4:10).
Misfortune struck again, and Naomi lost her two sons. Naomi was disheartened and determined to return to Bethlehem, for "she had heard in the coun-try of Moab that the LORD had visited His people in giving them bread" (Ruth 1:6). She also realized that, in a foreign land, a wife without her husband as provider would find herself in desperate straits.At first, Naomi assumed her daughters-in-law should return with her (Ruth 1:7). But then, as she considered her plight and options, she realized that her faithful Moabite daughters-in-law would undergo extreme difficulty finding new husbands in Israel. She urged them to remain in their land with their kinsmen and religion (Ruth 1:8, 9).Ruth and Orpah both could have returned to Bethlehem with Naomi. But only Ruth chose to remain with her, even though her prospects of finding a husband were not good and she would live as a widow in a foreign land. Ruth's determination to stay with Naomi was eloquent testimony to the sterling example Naomi had set for her daughters-in-law.Naomi's heartfelt urging that Ruth and Orpah return to Moab had to be a touching scene. Naomi told Ruth: "'Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.' But Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me'" (Ruth 1:15-17).Orpah returned to her homeland while Naomi and Ruth continued on the road to Bethlehem. Upon their arrival, the town buzzed with excitement, recognizing that one of the two women was Naomi. The women exclaimed, "'Is this Naomi?' But she said unto them, 'Do not call me Naomi [meaning "pleasant"]; call me Mara ["bitterly dealt with"], for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD has brought me home again empty. The Almighty has afflicted me'" (Ruth 1:19-21).So it was that faithful Naomi returned to Bethlehem with her Moabite daughter-in-law as the barley harvest was in full swing. Although Ruth couldn't know it then, her future blessings would spring from these afflictions.
Finding favor at harvesttime
The time of the return of Naomi and Ruth to Bethlehem was providential, for it was harvesttime and they had no food. The barley harvest and subsequent wheat harvest were their best chance for finding sustenance. It was during these gatherings that Ruth labored in Boaz's field. Ruth's attitude while laboring in the fields, gathering and winnowing grain, served as a model for later generations of Israelite women.Little wonder that the book of Ruth would be read in synagogues centuries later during the Feast of Weeks, a yearly festival that concluded the wheat harvest (A.S. Geden, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 4, p. 2528). This celebration was also known as Pentecost ("fiftieth [day]") to the New Testament Church (Acts 2), and it prophetically symbolized Jesus Christ's harvest of Christian lives (Matthew 9:36-38).Ruth, in deference to her mother-in-law Naomi, requested permission to go alone into the fields to gather leftover grain: "Please let me go to the field, and glean heads of grain after him in whose sight I may find favor."Naomi replied to Ruth: "Go, my daughter" (Ruth 2:2).
The Scripture provided a precedent for the custom of gleaning. "The law expressly allowed the poor the right to glean in the fields (i.e., in the corners of the fields; Leviticus 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21), but the owners of the fields were not always cooperative. A hard day's work under the hot sun frequently netted only a small amount of grain" (F.B. Huey Jr., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 527).God had guided Ruth to the field of Elimelech's kinsman, Boaz. Boaz's neighbors well knew his character, holding him in high esteem (Ruth 2:4). The very word Boaz means "in him is strength" or "man of strength." He lived up to his name.
Good advice
So it was that Boaz met Ruth, and would protect her and provided for her. "Then Boaz said to Ruth, 'You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women. Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them.'"Then she fell on her face, bowed down to the ground, and said to him, 'Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?'"And Boaz answered and said to her, 'It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before. The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge" (Ruth 2:8-12).Boaz had instructed the young men working for him to let Ruth glean not just in the corners but even among the sheaves, where she could gather much more grain than was otherwise possible. He also told them to drop some wheat on the ground for her to find.Gleaning turned out to be far more productive for Ruth than she had imagined possible. She brought home to Naomi a good supply of winnowed grain, enough for several weeks. In those times, someone could expect to glean only a few pounds of grain per day. Her amount from gleaning shows the regard the young men had for Boaz and his instructions to allow some of their harvested grain to fall to the ground in Ruth's path. It also speaks well of Ruth's diligence.Naomi was pleased with such favor shown by Boaz to her daughter-in-law Ruth: "Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not forsaken His kindness to the living and the dead! The man is a relative of ours, one of our near kinsmen" (Ruth 2:20).Ruth honored Naomi's words of encouragement and gleaned "until the end" of the barley and wheat harvests (Ruth 2:23).
Redemption and blessings
Naomi began to see, once again, that God had not forgotten her. This was a critical time for her and Ruth, one that held exciting promise, especially for the daughter-in-law. Boaz was indeed a kinsman of Elimelech, Naomi's dead husband."Under the Levirate law (referred to by Naomi in Ruth 1:1-13), when a man died childless his brother was bound to raise an heir to him by the widow. This law extended to the next of kin, hence Naomi's plan. Ruth, by her action in verse 7, was claiming this right" (David and Pat Alexander, Eerdmans' Handbook to the Bible, pp. 227, 228).Naomi's plan included careful instructions for Ruth, and her words enhanced the aura of romance: "My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Now Boaz, whose young women you were with, is he not our kinsman? In fact, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Therefore wash yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking."Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do. And [Ruth] said to her, 'All that you say to me I will do'" (Ruth 3:1-5).What a trusting attitude Ruth had. Remember, she was not an Israelite; she was a Moabite, a gentile. God was working out His great purpose through Ruth, whose heart and mind were those of a spiritual Israelite led by God's Holy Spirit (compare Romans 2:29 with 2 Corinthians 3:3).
Boaz would not dishonor Ruth
Let's understand the literal meaning of "uncover his feet" (Ruth 3:4). The reader should be aware that the sexually permissive society in which we live is a far cry from the social values of Ruth's time."Those who interpret a sexual relation in the events reflect their twentieth-century cultural conditioning of sexual permissiveness. They fail to appreciate the element of Ruth's trust that Boaz would not dishonor her whom he wanted for his wife. They fail to appreciate the cultural taboos of Ruth's time that would have prevented a man of Boaz's position from taking advantage of Ruth, thereby destroying her reputation and perhaps endangering his own" (Huey, p. 538).
The moral character of Boaz and Ruth remains intact.
Boaz knew of another kinsman more closely related to Ruth than he. Boaz, manifesting exemplary integrity, addressed the situation straightforwardly: "There is a kinsman nearer than I," he told Ruth. "Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a near kinsman for you-good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the LORD lives!" (Ruth 3:12, 13).The unfolding drama starkly contrasts the two men. The nearer relative reacted agreeably to Boaz's mention of Naomi's land of inheritance, but, when Boaz noted the added responsibility of redeeming Ruth's inheritance, the man quickly declined. "And the near kinsman said, 'I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it. Buy it for yourself'" (Ruth 4:6, 8).Today, as we read the account of Ruth, we know that the closest relative unknowingly denied himself a great opportunity. Boaz not only redeemed all of Naomi's inheritance, he claimed Ruth's as well."Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place. You are witnesses this day. And all the people said, 'We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman'" (Ruth 4:10-12).So God blessed Naomi and Ruth through Boaz. Boaz took Ruth as his wife, and she bore him a son. Then Naomi's friends said to her: "Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman [redeemer]; and may his name be famous in Israel!" (Ruth 4:14).Ruth became a forebear of JesusGod blessed Ruth's faithfulness with her son, whom she named Obed. It was through Obed that Ruth became the great-grandmother of King David and direct ancestor of our Savior, Jesus Christ.Who would have thought Naomi would return to Bethlehem with only her Moabite daughter-in-law, Ruth? Who could have guessed that Ruth would figure in the lineage of Jesus Christ? No human being could have worked out this scenario. Faith in God and God's purpose contribute to such miraculous results.Had Ruth, a Moabitess, not proved faithful to her Israelite mother-in-law, she would not have returned with her, nor would Ruth have met and married Boaz, nor would she have had a son, Obed, who would become an ancestor of David and Jesus Christ.Think for a moment all that worked against such an extraordinary outcome. By chance, Ruth met Naomi's son, Mahlon, whose family was forced by hardship to live as resident aliens in her country of Moab. By chance, she married Mahlon. By chance, her father-in-law, her brother-in-law and her husband all died in her homeland.By chance, she insisted on returning with Naomi to Israel, to live as an alien in a strange land, away from her family, relatives, religion, homeland. By chance, she met Boaz and gained the opportunity to be redeemed and married.By chance, Boaz married her, and together they had a son who figured in the direct lineage of the very Son of God.Or did all of this occur by chance? To the casual observer, it might seem as if this all happened by chance. But, for those who live by faith-the same faith that Jesus Christ exercised here on earth-it becomes obvious that these miraculous events were directed by Almighty God. Ruth defied all the odds, and, even though she was a gentile, figures directly in the physical lineage of our Savior.Ruth's faithful example extends far beyond her physical lineage. She figures prominently as a forerunner of spiritual Israel, the Church of God. She typifies the Old Testament prophecy to Abraham of the New Covenant Church, which would include gentiles and Israelites alike: "And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" through Jesus Christ (Genesis 12:3).
Ruth's example acknowledged
Ruth's relationship to God while living among Israelites is aptly described by Peter in the New Testament when God gave the first gentiles His Holy Spirit: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34, 35).God's impartiality is a bountiful blessing that neither Ruth, Boaz, nor Naomi could know during their time. But we are privileged to know such inspiring truths.Ruth's example of faith was customarily recited in the temple and later in the synagogues during the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost. Her example helps to signify our role and salvation in God's Church.For instance, in Leviticus 23, God identifies two loaves of leavened bread offered during the Feast of Weeks: "You shall bring from your habitations two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven. They are the firstfruits to the LORD" (Leviticus 23:17).These two loaves of leavened bread represent, at once, God's faithful disciples in both the old and new dispensations, but they also represent the two separate and now fused races of people who comprise the Church: gentiles and Israelites.The leaven signifies our human nature, in a general sense, and the sin that so easily besets us (compare 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7 with Matthew 16:12 and Hebrews 12:1). The baked loaves show that all God's people, whether gentile or Israelite, whether part of the old or new dispensation, will have their faith forged through the fiery trials experienced in this life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 1 Peter 1:7).The focus of the book of Ruth highlights the barley and wheat harvests in Palestine, a time of reaping rewards from hard work and a foretaste of humanity's spiritual redemption. Even Bethlehem means "the house of bread." This motif shows God's strict adherence to detail. But, in a broader sense, God's prophetic plan is revealed through the story of Ruth and its correlation to the entire New Testament.It is inspiring to read the contrast of Ruth's faith to that of the Israel of her time. Her undying devotion to Naomi and her redemption by Boaz attest to her humble obedience that transcends time, race and culture.
Ruth's story begins in Bethlehem, in Judah, when a father and mother and their two sons strike out for greener pastures. Their homeland and people were suffering from a severe shortage of food and water.This famine didn't come upon the land just by chance. There were reasons for these dark days in Israel, then ruled by judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).One Bible scholar describes this epoch: "The period of the judges was between the initial conquest of Palestine under Joshua and the establishment of the monarchy under Saul. It was a time of moral and political chaos in Israel with no strong central government or leader. The people repeatedly turned away from God and neighboring peoples constantly harassed and invaded the disorganized nation" (F.B. Huey, Jr., The Expositor's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 509).God had warned that, if the Israelites forgot His covenant, He would allow persecution and starvation and other physical deprivations (See Deuteronomy 28).It was during such a stressful time that the members of a humble family in Israel decided they must live as aliens in a foreign land, Moab, on the other side of the Jordan River.There was little food in Bethlehem and bleak prospects of garnering any. On the other hand, Moab was a fertile region with plenty of rain, and that land provided a haven for many who were hungry.So it was that Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion, all members of an Israelitish family, packed their belongings and headed east to a fertile garden in Moab. There they settled and were blessed to find food and shelter.More misfortuneBut time and chance take their toll on everyone, even faithful Elimelech's family. Tragedy struck. First Elimelech died, apparently before his time.Suffering from the shock of life's frailty, at the same time bearing the weight of responsibility of carrying on the family name, both sons took Moabite wives. Mahlon wed Ruth; Chilion married Orpah (Ruth 1:4, 4:10).
Misfortune struck again, and Naomi lost her two sons. Naomi was disheartened and determined to return to Bethlehem, for "she had heard in the coun-try of Moab that the LORD had visited His people in giving them bread" (Ruth 1:6). She also realized that, in a foreign land, a wife without her husband as provider would find herself in desperate straits.At first, Naomi assumed her daughters-in-law should return with her (Ruth 1:7). But then, as she considered her plight and options, she realized that her faithful Moabite daughters-in-law would undergo extreme difficulty finding new husbands in Israel. She urged them to remain in their land with their kinsmen and religion (Ruth 1:8, 9).Ruth and Orpah both could have returned to Bethlehem with Naomi. But only Ruth chose to remain with her, even though her prospects of finding a husband were not good and she would live as a widow in a foreign land. Ruth's determination to stay with Naomi was eloquent testimony to the sterling example Naomi had set for her daughters-in-law.Naomi's heartfelt urging that Ruth and Orpah return to Moab had to be a touching scene. Naomi told Ruth: "'Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.' But Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me'" (Ruth 1:15-17).Orpah returned to her homeland while Naomi and Ruth continued on the road to Bethlehem. Upon their arrival, the town buzzed with excitement, recognizing that one of the two women was Naomi. The women exclaimed, "'Is this Naomi?' But she said unto them, 'Do not call me Naomi [meaning "pleasant"]; call me Mara ["bitterly dealt with"], for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD has brought me home again empty. The Almighty has afflicted me'" (Ruth 1:19-21).So it was that faithful Naomi returned to Bethlehem with her Moabite daughter-in-law as the barley harvest was in full swing. Although Ruth couldn't know it then, her future blessings would spring from these afflictions.
Finding favor at harvesttime
The time of the return of Naomi and Ruth to Bethlehem was providential, for it was harvesttime and they had no food. The barley harvest and subsequent wheat harvest were their best chance for finding sustenance. It was during these gatherings that Ruth labored in Boaz's field. Ruth's attitude while laboring in the fields, gathering and winnowing grain, served as a model for later generations of Israelite women.Little wonder that the book of Ruth would be read in synagogues centuries later during the Feast of Weeks, a yearly festival that concluded the wheat harvest (A.S. Geden, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 4, p. 2528). This celebration was also known as Pentecost ("fiftieth [day]") to the New Testament Church (Acts 2), and it prophetically symbolized Jesus Christ's harvest of Christian lives (Matthew 9:36-38).Ruth, in deference to her mother-in-law Naomi, requested permission to go alone into the fields to gather leftover grain: "Please let me go to the field, and glean heads of grain after him in whose sight I may find favor."Naomi replied to Ruth: "Go, my daughter" (Ruth 2:2).
The Scripture provided a precedent for the custom of gleaning. "The law expressly allowed the poor the right to glean in the fields (i.e., in the corners of the fields; Leviticus 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21), but the owners of the fields were not always cooperative. A hard day's work under the hot sun frequently netted only a small amount of grain" (F.B. Huey Jr., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 527).God had guided Ruth to the field of Elimelech's kinsman, Boaz. Boaz's neighbors well knew his character, holding him in high esteem (Ruth 2:4). The very word Boaz means "in him is strength" or "man of strength." He lived up to his name.
Good advice
So it was that Boaz met Ruth, and would protect her and provided for her. "Then Boaz said to Ruth, 'You will listen, my daughter, will you not? Do not go to glean in another field, nor go from here, but stay close by my young women. Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them.'"Then she fell on her face, bowed down to the ground, and said to him, 'Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?'"And Boaz answered and said to her, 'It has been fully reported to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before. The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge" (Ruth 2:8-12).Boaz had instructed the young men working for him to let Ruth glean not just in the corners but even among the sheaves, where she could gather much more grain than was otherwise possible. He also told them to drop some wheat on the ground for her to find.Gleaning turned out to be far more productive for Ruth than she had imagined possible. She brought home to Naomi a good supply of winnowed grain, enough for several weeks. In those times, someone could expect to glean only a few pounds of grain per day. Her amount from gleaning shows the regard the young men had for Boaz and his instructions to allow some of their harvested grain to fall to the ground in Ruth's path. It also speaks well of Ruth's diligence.Naomi was pleased with such favor shown by Boaz to her daughter-in-law Ruth: "Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not forsaken His kindness to the living and the dead! The man is a relative of ours, one of our near kinsmen" (Ruth 2:20).Ruth honored Naomi's words of encouragement and gleaned "until the end" of the barley and wheat harvests (Ruth 2:23).
Redemption and blessings
Naomi began to see, once again, that God had not forgotten her. This was a critical time for her and Ruth, one that held exciting promise, especially for the daughter-in-law. Boaz was indeed a kinsman of Elimelech, Naomi's dead husband."Under the Levirate law (referred to by Naomi in Ruth 1:1-13), when a man died childless his brother was bound to raise an heir to him by the widow. This law extended to the next of kin, hence Naomi's plan. Ruth, by her action in verse 7, was claiming this right" (David and Pat Alexander, Eerdmans' Handbook to the Bible, pp. 227, 228).Naomi's plan included careful instructions for Ruth, and her words enhanced the aura of romance: "My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Now Boaz, whose young women you were with, is he not our kinsman? In fact, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Therefore wash yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking."Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do. And [Ruth] said to her, 'All that you say to me I will do'" (Ruth 3:1-5).What a trusting attitude Ruth had. Remember, she was not an Israelite; she was a Moabite, a gentile. God was working out His great purpose through Ruth, whose heart and mind were those of a spiritual Israelite led by God's Holy Spirit (compare Romans 2:29 with 2 Corinthians 3:3).
Boaz would not dishonor Ruth
Let's understand the literal meaning of "uncover his feet" (Ruth 3:4). The reader should be aware that the sexually permissive society in which we live is a far cry from the social values of Ruth's time."Those who interpret a sexual relation in the events reflect their twentieth-century cultural conditioning of sexual permissiveness. They fail to appreciate the element of Ruth's trust that Boaz would not dishonor her whom he wanted for his wife. They fail to appreciate the cultural taboos of Ruth's time that would have prevented a man of Boaz's position from taking advantage of Ruth, thereby destroying her reputation and perhaps endangering his own" (Huey, p. 538).
The moral character of Boaz and Ruth remains intact.
Boaz knew of another kinsman more closely related to Ruth than he. Boaz, manifesting exemplary integrity, addressed the situation straightforwardly: "There is a kinsman nearer than I," he told Ruth. "Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a near kinsman for you-good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the LORD lives!" (Ruth 3:12, 13).The unfolding drama starkly contrasts the two men. The nearer relative reacted agreeably to Boaz's mention of Naomi's land of inheritance, but, when Boaz noted the added responsibility of redeeming Ruth's inheritance, the man quickly declined. "And the near kinsman said, 'I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it. Buy it for yourself'" (Ruth 4:6, 8).Today, as we read the account of Ruth, we know that the closest relative unknowingly denied himself a great opportunity. Boaz not only redeemed all of Naomi's inheritance, he claimed Ruth's as well."Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place. You are witnesses this day. And all the people said, 'We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman'" (Ruth 4:10-12).So God blessed Naomi and Ruth through Boaz. Boaz took Ruth as his wife, and she bore him a son. Then Naomi's friends said to her: "Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman [redeemer]; and may his name be famous in Israel!" (Ruth 4:14).Ruth became a forebear of JesusGod blessed Ruth's faithfulness with her son, whom she named Obed. It was through Obed that Ruth became the great-grandmother of King David and direct ancestor of our Savior, Jesus Christ.Who would have thought Naomi would return to Bethlehem with only her Moabite daughter-in-law, Ruth? Who could have guessed that Ruth would figure in the lineage of Jesus Christ? No human being could have worked out this scenario. Faith in God and God's purpose contribute to such miraculous results.Had Ruth, a Moabitess, not proved faithful to her Israelite mother-in-law, she would not have returned with her, nor would Ruth have met and married Boaz, nor would she have had a son, Obed, who would become an ancestor of David and Jesus Christ.Think for a moment all that worked against such an extraordinary outcome. By chance, Ruth met Naomi's son, Mahlon, whose family was forced by hardship to live as resident aliens in her country of Moab. By chance, she married Mahlon. By chance, her father-in-law, her brother-in-law and her husband all died in her homeland.By chance, she insisted on returning with Naomi to Israel, to live as an alien in a strange land, away from her family, relatives, religion, homeland. By chance, she met Boaz and gained the opportunity to be redeemed and married.By chance, Boaz married her, and together they had a son who figured in the direct lineage of the very Son of God.Or did all of this occur by chance? To the casual observer, it might seem as if this all happened by chance. But, for those who live by faith-the same faith that Jesus Christ exercised here on earth-it becomes obvious that these miraculous events were directed by Almighty God. Ruth defied all the odds, and, even though she was a gentile, figures directly in the physical lineage of our Savior.Ruth's faithful example extends far beyond her physical lineage. She figures prominently as a forerunner of spiritual Israel, the Church of God. She typifies the Old Testament prophecy to Abraham of the New Covenant Church, which would include gentiles and Israelites alike: "And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" through Jesus Christ (Genesis 12:3).
Ruth's example acknowledged
Ruth's relationship to God while living among Israelites is aptly described by Peter in the New Testament when God gave the first gentiles His Holy Spirit: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34, 35).God's impartiality is a bountiful blessing that neither Ruth, Boaz, nor Naomi could know during their time. But we are privileged to know such inspiring truths.Ruth's example of faith was customarily recited in the temple and later in the synagogues during the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost. Her example helps to signify our role and salvation in God's Church.For instance, in Leviticus 23, God identifies two loaves of leavened bread offered during the Feast of Weeks: "You shall bring from your habitations two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven. They are the firstfruits to the LORD" (Leviticus 23:17).These two loaves of leavened bread represent, at once, God's faithful disciples in both the old and new dispensations, but they also represent the two separate and now fused races of people who comprise the Church: gentiles and Israelites.The leaven signifies our human nature, in a general sense, and the sin that so easily besets us (compare 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7 with Matthew 16:12 and Hebrews 12:1). The baked loaves show that all God's people, whether gentile or Israelite, whether part of the old or new dispensation, will have their faith forged through the fiery trials experienced in this life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 1 Peter 1:7).The focus of the book of Ruth highlights the barley and wheat harvests in Palestine, a time of reaping rewards from hard work and a foretaste of humanity's spiritual redemption. Even Bethlehem means "the house of bread." This motif shows God's strict adherence to detail. But, in a broader sense, God's prophetic plan is revealed through the story of Ruth and its correlation to the entire New Testament.It is inspiring to read the contrast of Ruth's faith to that of the Israel of her time. Her undying devotion to Naomi and her redemption by Boaz attest to her humble obedience that transcends time, race and culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)