FAMINE WHEN JUDGES RULED
FAMINE WHEN JUDGES RULED
JT We have already considered the famines in the times of Abraham and Isaac, and the famine which was universal, with which Joseph had to do in Egypt. I think the Lord helped us to see that the effect of the famine in Egypt was to bring the brethren to light; and, as applying it to the present time, to bring into evidence the Lord’s people in their relation to Him. The present pressure is to bring to light those related to Christ as Joseph’s brethren were related to him, so that they might be marked off from this world. We also noted that Jacob, in sending his sons to Egypt for food the second time, said, “Buy us a little food” (Genesis. 43:2), as though he accepted the reduction which the famine involved. This has a special significance now, for in the stress of the moment the Lord would have His people accept reduction, which means inward expansion. In Judges 6 there is a famine, or rather a scarcity of food mentioned, but that was rather in the character of an oppression; whereas this book of Ruth begins with a famine and the effect of it on a certain family.
JEH Would you say expansion depends upon the acceptance of the famine?
JT That is the way we get the gain of discipline — by accepting it feelingly. That character of exercise comes out in this book; Naomi, whose name signifies “my pleasantness”, changes her name to Mara, which means “bitter”, showing that she felt the circumstances of deflection in the fields of Moab.
AFM In contrast to the universal famine centred in Egypt, this famine was circumscribed, and centred, apparently, in Bethlehem-Judah; and, whereas the famine in Egypt brought to light the [p. 163] brethren, this famine affects specially one family and brings Ruth to light.
JT Yes; Bethlehem-Judah would not be more than fifty miles from Moab, so that, as to extent, it is not to be compared with the famine under Joseph. It was evidently local to “the land”, but served to bring out great results, not only for the family immediately involved, but it pointed typically to extended results in the nation of Israel represented in Naomi. Israel was the centre of God’s thoughts on the earth, and Ruth comes to light as representing the remnant, having no claim at all, but entering into the greatest privileges.
AFM So it is “a son born to Naomi”, (chapter 4:17), not to Ruth.
JT Yes; I think it is to show what will come about in the history of God’s earthly people Israel by and by, as the centre of His purpose and thoughts as to the earth. The son would be to Israel; they will say, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given”, Isaiah 9:6). I suppose Moab here alludes to what would be fruitful under such circumstances. The word “country”, may be translated “fields”; it was evidently a prolific farming country, such as would divert one straitened in circumstances.
ANW “The days when the judges ruled”, seems to apply more to the earlier part of their rule than the latter. I wonder whether there was a relation between that and the famine?
JT I think verse 1 calls attention to the weakness or defectiveness of their service.
AFM Would the last verse of Judges 21 be a sort of preface to the book? It says, “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes”. Elimelech also did what was right in his own eyes — he led the way to the fields of [p. 164] Moab.
JT Yes, his name is significant, meaning “whose God is king”, but he was not true to it. It was the formula that governed the days when God was king, but Elimelech was not in keeping with his name, nor did he justify it. Had he really believed that God was king, he would have stayed in the land, and God would have provided for him. His course would point to misjudgment of the judges, rather than to being governed by their judgment. The profession implied that God was King, in which case every man should do what was right in His eyes. We may see by what Naomi said, that there was no need for Elimelech to have gone to Moab; she said, “I went out full”. Why did they go if they were full? There must have been some will at work; and that is what should exercise us all in the present distress — what are the motives actuating us in any movements we make?
CB Are you suggesting that we are not to move on our own initiative?
JT Well, if God is King, it is for us to let Him exercise His kingship, and He will not fail us.
TA Is it not God’s prerogative to turn a wrong move into blessing?
JT Yes. It is very encouraging to see that working out; for example, in John 21:3, Peter says to the disciples, “I go to fish”. And then, “They say to him, We also come with thee. They went forth and went on board”. This movement was one of failure, but the beginning of the chapter shows that it was a question of a manifestation of Jesus to His disciples. If any of us were to write a paper on John 21, the title of it rightly would be, A Manifestation of Jesus, not The Failure of Peter. The manifestation was the result of what happened. “He manifested himself thus”; then the Spirit relates what occurred, showing that God allows things to happen for His own ends. We are told that this was “[p. 165] the third time that Jesus had been manifested to the disciples, being risen from among the dead”.
JS I was wondering whether the independency of action seen in every man doing “what was right in his own eyes”, would bring about famine conditions?
JT Exactly. There was no credit to Peter or to the others that went with him for the way the Lord came in, but the Lord acquired glory through it, turning all into a manifestation of Himself.
AP You are not justifying their expedition?
JT No; it was a return to what they had been called from.
ANW This book of Ruth is introduced by a famine; it also confirms that, whatever wrong was done, God remained King; He is over all, and through Elimelech’s failure brought in the link between Judges and the prophet Samuel.
JT Indeed, the Messiah Himself is seen as a result, the Man under whose rule everyone would not do “what was right in his own eyes”. The closing verses of the book afford a striking testimony to the over-ruling grace of God. It induces the spirit of worship, which the name given to the “son born to Naomi” implies.
HSD Was it not very serious that Elimelech and the two sons had died?
JT They represent the responsible side; the narrative shows how God can work in spite of the failure of those responsible to own and maintain His rights — using the most unexpected vessels. Elimelech represented the profession that God was King, and yet he was going against that principle; his two sons, according to the meaning of their names, were weaklings; they were sickly young men, and died. So that the book brings into evidence the feminine or subjective side, showing what God can do in this connection to maintain His testimony in spite of breakdown. What we should see, whilst [p. 166] recognising the typical significance of the book as referring to Israel and the remnant, is how it applies now; in the breakdown of the responsible element in the church, there is, after all, what is of God in a subjective way, and it is for individuals like Ruth, who have no claim in themselves upon God, to attach themselves to that, as Ruth attached herself to Naomi.
JS There was a remarkable manifestation of the work of God in Ruth.
JT Yes, and in Naomi also. The responsible element had gone; there was no man left. It was a question of three women, one of whom went back, so that their number was reduced to two. What would become of them? The mind at once alights on Ruth, on the devotedness of one in whom God was working; and mark this — it was not simply that she had love, there must also have been great lovableness in Naomi.
AFM Would you say that Naomi stands for light, and also for state, in that she changed her name from Naomi to Mara, and that Ruth found a suited companion in such a one?
JT Exactly; I think she stands for light, but light in a certain connection; that is, if we take her as a type of Israel in the future. The present application would be to those who are walking in the light of the church, and who, feeling its sorrowful responsible history, acknowledge their part in it. The use of the word ‘Mara’ is very much like John’s feeling when he had eaten the little book; he says, “my belly was made bitter” (Revelation 10:10). Believers who recognise Christ and the assembly in any way, and who feel the great breakdown of the public body, are the ones to cleave to.
ARS I notice that others did not call her Mara; it was what she named herself.
JT Well, it was her own feeling, into which, of [p. 167] course, all who knew her then late history could enter, but, as always in such circumstances, God soon opened up a bright future to her. Normally, when we own the result of our unbelieving conduct, the brethren do not continue referring to it; nor does God. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”, we are told in 1 John 1:9.
AR It says of Naomi, that she laid the child in her bosom. I suppose that would indicate the love which characterised her.
JT Yes. What we should see and understand is that she represents those who have the light of the church now. Whilst making full allowance for the prophetic bearing of the book, typically it emphasises those who recognise Christ and the assembly, however feeble or broken the latter may be — those who feel things; and as fresh spiritual thoughts and light come, they embrace them, as Naomi embraced the child.
JEH Naomi was, typically, of Paul’s company ready for whatever God was pleased to develop.
JT Yes; they evidently became a test to John Mark; for he separated from them; (Acts 13:13).
ANW Is not the name Mara very closely akin to the name Mary, which is so prominent in the gospels, bringing in the link between what is broken down officially and what God takes up and maintains to the end?
JT That is good. Miriam, too, is associated with the thought of bitterness.
AFM The waters of Mara were clearly that; they were bitter, and the children of Israel could not drink of them. Would there not be a connection between Israel at Mara and our scripture?
JT Exactly; they had to taste the bitterness of death. Christ tasted death in all that it meant as the judgment of God, and He would bring us into [p. 168] accord with it in our spirits; for those who feel what God does, He surely respects.
WB-w Do you think Ruth recognised what answers to the church before they left Moab?
JT Well, I think she might have seen something of the work of God. The church would be seen in Naomi in type; she represented, figuratively, that vessel as the depository of divine thoughts. You will notice that it is said of Elimelech and his family that they were “Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah”. Ordinarily those words would be tautological, because the people of Bethlehem-Judah were Ephrathites, so that evidently it means that they were really local. The ancient name of Bethlehem was Ephrath, reminding us of Rachel’s sufferings and death. Scripture shows that much spiritual feeling was linked with it; the use of the name “Ephrathites” is, I think, to call attention to the fact that this family really belonged to the place. Its more recent name of Bethlehem-Judah could not have existed until the tribes of Israel had come into the land.
WB-w They did not belong to Moab.
JT Clearly; they belonged to the place with which Rachel’s sepulchre was connected, where she wept for her children, and where the Messiah would be born (compare Ruth 4:11, Jeremiah 31:15, Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:18). What holy sentiments and hopes are suggested by such a place!
BTF Would you say that Ruth comes into evidence in order to bring in the parentage of David?
JT Yes, but she also is as an example of the immensity of the privilege into which anyone may now come, who becomes attached to those who have the light of the testimony. Thus a stranger came into such a great place in Israel. But how did she come into it? The same privilege was open to Orpah, but she went back to her people and her [p. 169] gods. The answer is that Ruth in affection clave to Naomi and would not leave her.
AP Is there a suggestion of sovereignty in Ruth, indicating how each of us has a place among the brethren?
JT I think so. She comes into the line of the Messiah, as seen in Matthew’s gospel, with others of her kind, such as Rahab, to bring out what one who accepts strangership may come into in attaching himself to those who have the light of the church — the light of the purpose of God, however brokenly. Such are taken up in rich mercy and in great love and made “fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God”, (Ephesians 2:19).
AFM The meaning of “Ruth” is friendship or companionship.
JT We, as brethren, are strangers here. The more light we have as to Christ and the church, the more we accept strangership, and the more we shall look for companionship and be glad to have it. Ruth represents those who have come into touch with those who have light, and who, on remaining with such, gradually come into the full shining of Christ; they see who He is and learn their relationship with Him.
AJD Naomi would represent one who had received the love of the truth?
JT Yes, she represents that side as seen in chapter 1; she felt things; she said, “the hand of Jehovah is gone out against me”. You can see how applicable it is to Israel in the future, and to the church now. God’s hand has gone out against the public body because of its failure; the more we feel it, the more God will come in for us.
AJD It says, “And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse to it”, (chapter 4:16).
JT That shows she had affection, and whatever [p. 170] comes in as a subsequent thing, she is ready for it; like Simeon in Jerusalem, who was ready to receive the Child Jesus, when He was brought into the temple. The women, Naomi’s neighbours, assigned the child to Naomi and called his name Obed, or “worshipper”; thus bringing to a climax all the exercises of the book, for “he is the father of Jesse, the father of David”.
TA I suppose the discipline through which she passed prepared her for the reception of the babe.
JT Yes; there had been the acknowledgment of her own impotency to effect anything, so that the purpose of God was effected another way, rather than through her.
ANW In the light of public failure, could Christ come in apart from the sense of widowhood?
JT It is a state that makes room for Him, morally. Babylon, the false church, “says in her heart, I sit a queen, I am not a widow; and I shall in no wise see grief”, (Revelation 18: 7). She is the opposite of that which is seen in Naomi.
WB-w Was there a state according to God at all before Naomi left Bethlehem-Judah, or did her exercise in Moab produce that state?
JT The early verses of chapter 1, taken typically, would show that Israel as a nation had left the land in unbelief; then when Naomi begins to return, God’s work is seen. The word ‘return’ appears constantly in the prophets. The thing is exemplified in the case of the prodigal; returning to divine territory is the evidence of the work of God.
AFM The ten years in the fields of Moab would be significant in that way. They had been tested on the ground of responsibility to return, and had failed; but now God has come in sovereignly, manifesting His work.
JT And Ruth’s devotedness is to bring out more fully the work of God — how beautiful it is! She is [p. 171] allowed to say certain things. It is very fine to listen to young Christians, not merely saying what is put into their minds, but expressing their own thoughts. This speech is Ruth’s own; there is no evidence that Naomi ever used speech like it. She says, “Do not entreat me to leave thee” etc., and then she binds herself, calling on Jehovah, that nought but death would part her from Naomi. It is a definite committal, which is a point of great importance for young Christians to arrive at in soul history. It is, you might say, on the principle of a covenant: “Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part me and thee!” That is more than an ordinary word: it is a committal on her side which is irrevocable, God being brought into it.
TH It says, “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking to her”.
JT Naomi left off speaking, for it was a settled matter, “and they two went until they came to Bethlehem”.
JTJr Would you say that Ruth, in principle, presented her body a living sacrifice; (Romans 12)?
JT Yes; there is complete devotedness and unqualified committal to the object of her love. It will be noted that in attachment to Naomi she is free from the gods of Moab; and already in the knowledge of Jehovah, Naomi’s God.
AP What would you say about “thy people”? She had not seen the people of God as yet; all she had seen was Naomi.
JT She saw one of them! If you see one of them you will see them all in principle. The ground I should take in coming in contact with souls is, that I represent not only Christ, but the people of God here; that as seeing me, they ought to see the saints, in principle. The Midianitish kings said that Gideon’s brethren were like him — “each one resembled the sons of a king”, (Judges 8:18).
BTF Would you say the traits found in Ruth and Boaz are such as came out in the Lord Himself?
JT Yes; Boaz, of course, is typically Christ, “a mighty man of wealth”; and the beautiful traits that come out in Ruth represent the work of God in His people, especially young ones, and how we come under the influence of Christ in a responsive way.
AR Is there not a responsibility laid upon us to cleave to the brethren, as Ruth clave to Naomi?
JT There is. People might say, “You are putting the brethren in the place of Christ”; but that is not so; it is to bring out the divine nature, and how attractive it becomes to others! You are gradually led on until you see it fully in Christ, because the redemption comes out in Boaz as representing Christ, but the Messiah Himself is in the distance, so to speak; the genealogy at the end pointing to Him, there is a gradual enlargement of the truth in the narrative.
RWS May not the brethren say, “come with us, and we will do thee good”, (Numbers 10:29)? What was the force of this argument that Naomi used to dissuade her daughters-in-law from coming with her?
JT I think it was to bring out what was spiritual in Ruth. We get such tests in Scripture. When we are challenged thus it is to bring out what may be of God in us.
JS To bring to light the work of God subjectively.
JT I think God delights to hear young Christians speak as they see things themselves. Ruth evidently spoke from her own consciousness of things.
BTF The Holy Spirit, in describing this scene, brought out beforehand what the Lord said regarding the Comforter, “He shall glorify me” (John 16:14);
[p. 173] for in writing the book of Ruth He is glorifying what would come out in Christ.
JT I think that is important. What is recorded in a book like this are simply incidents culled from a multitude of others, and put together by the Spirit so as to produce a certain impression of Christ.
ABP Does this not link on with John 6:67, where many turned away and ceased from following the Lord? He turned to the twelve and said, “Will ye also go away?”
JT It does very strikingly; so that what the Lord’s challenge brought out was what Peter himself had come into at the moment. He does not says, as the A.V. puts it, “thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God”, but “thou art the holy one of God”, which was his apprehension of what he had observed.
RDG Elisha was tested three times, and made a similar response: “As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee!” (2 Kings 2:2).
JT It is to be noticed that at each point on that remarkable journey, Elijah challenges Elisha, but only to bring out the devotedness of the latter. “And they two went on”, (2 Kings 2:6).
WB-w David challenges Ittai in the same way: “Return and take back thy brethren. Mercy and truth be with thee!” and he answered “As Jehovah liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life, even there also will thy servant be” (2 Samuel 15:20,21).
JT A remarkable answer from one who was a stranger, a Gittite.
WGT It was not the same with Barzillai, who would not go to Jerusalem with David.
JT That is the converse of this; David urged Barzillai to go with him, but he had no taste for Jerusalem. He pleaded old age, which applied to a [p. 174] professed Christian is through lack of exercise, the absence of spiritual energy and taste — a serious consideration.
APT All this should be a great help to the Lord’s people now. Many of them, like Ruth and Naomi, have lost everything. The test would be whether the work of God enables us to see His hand and trust Him in the presence of the pressure.
AJD We cannot make too much of what Naomi represents.
JT As returning, she represents those who have the light, however feebly and brokenly. If God is working in me and my will is not in activity, I shall respect those who have the light of the church, and keep by them.
JS Would you say Naomi represents the godly element, or remnant?
JT The whole nation. It is most essential to get a grasp of the whole thing, in however few this may be seen today; such have thoughts according to God. All that Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion had, belonged to Naomi.
JS We should, therefore, hold nothing less than the truth of the whole church, embracing it in a universal way.
TA Is that what came to light in Philadelphia?
JT That is where you see it worked out. “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial”, (Revelation 3:10). “Thee” means the whole church; there would be an understanding of that in Philadelphia.
WGT Naomi kissed both her daughters-in-law.
JT Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but went back. She represents how far one may be carried in the right direction by external influences. There was no work of God in her; she does not go on to full growth, but goes back to her country and her gods.
AP Jonathan wept with David, but he went back.
WB-w Ruth was tested by light and love, [p. 175] as we all are. As you suggested, there was not only light in Naomi, but love.
JT She must have been a lovable woman, because both the daughters-in-law were attached to her; but, typically, Orpah is not a subject of the work of God, whereas Ruth is.
WGT Does what Naomi says represent the test for fellowship?
JT I think so. It is a test to Ruth’s heart, but she does not cast a regretful eye on what she was leaving.
BTF The Lord brought out the same trait in His disciples when He asked, “Will ye also go away?” They had discerned something in Him that they could not leave.
JT Ruth entered into a covenant, as was remarked; she committed herself, calling upon God.
AFM How would that committal apply to us in the epistles?
JT It is like Romans 6:3, where you commit yourself in baptism to the Lord: “as many as have been baptised unto Christ Jesus, have been baptised unto his death”. And then, carrying it further, it is found in the Lord’s supper — in partaking of the Lord’s supper I commit myself definitely both to the Lord and to His own. I am in fellowship, which involves not only obligation to the Lord Himself, but also to the brethren.
HSD The result of Ruth’s devotedness is that she comes under the wings of Jehovah. Boaz says to her, “under whose wings thou art come to take refuge”, (chapter 2:12). Divine protection is a feature of the greatest importance.
WB-w Ruth was in fellowship in a definite way when she committed herself.
JT The entering into this contract was from her own side; it was not demanded of her. All that [p. 176] followed was gain.
AP Her demeanour in the field was very commendable.
JT Yes. Every paragraph after this is constructive as bringing out how the young believer comes under the influence of Christ, and, through the knowledge of redemption, into the greatest dignity and blessing.
AFM They came to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest; would that be typical of a risen Christ?
JT The barley harvest is the first harvest according to Exodus 9, and therefore would be a type of Christ risen; the wheat harvest would be the next thought, pointing to the saints as risen with Christ.
RAL Boaz knew of Ruth’s kindness to Naomi and gave her full credit for it. The Lord well knows whether we love and serve the brethren or not.
APT The reference to the wings of Jehovah, the God of Israel, fits in with the Lord’s own remarks with regard to Jerusalem, “how often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37). Young believers, moving as this book indicates, come into the sphere of the protection of love.
JT Just so. You get it also in Ezekiel 16:8, where God found Jerusalem without covering, and spread His skirt over her.
WB-w This protection for us would be the kingdom.
JS Do we see in this book the way out of famine conditions?
JT The way out is to discern and judge, as before God, what occasioned it. This is seen here in Naomi. We all may be assured that there has been much secret history with us that God would have us deal with unsparingly.
JS It is helpful for us to see the rift in the [p. 177] clouds morally here. Naomi accepts the government of God and hence we see recovery from this point on.
HSD She heard a very good report that moved her: “Jehovah had visited his people to give them bread”.
AP Does the famine in a general way reflect the state of the people of God?
JT It did in this case, and we may say circumstances of this kind are generally allowed of God to bring to light where His people are, and then, as the discipline is accepted, to bring out what God can be to us. There is usually some fresh opening up of the mind of God as His discipline is felt and accepted. I think God is going to come in for His people at the present time; in fact, He is coming in for them, but it is a question of our feeling things, and seeing how, as we are stripped of everything, the work of God comes to light; and as subjects of it we are to be marked by comely traits of Christ. Beautiful traits, peculiar to herself, shone in Ruth, without anything being said as to how she got them; but they were there, just as when the spies found Rahab, lovely traits were there, yet we have no record of how she became possessed of them. The work of God is always its own witness.
AP It was when Naomi and Ruth came to Bethlehem that we hear of the barley harvest, and that Ruth has part in it.
JT And we see too how much she got, she was working on her own account, in the fields of Boaz; but she beat out what she had gleaned, about an ephah of barley, quite a good gleaning for one day’s labour.
AFM Do you not think she was greatly helped in her new surroundings by being in the company of Naomi, who, whilst the brethren did not call her Mara, called herself by that name? While the brethren may in grace avoid humbling us by such [p. 178] names, it is necessary to use them ourselves, owning fully any conduct that may occasion discipline. Whatever growth there was in Naomi afterwards, the element of Mara had entered definitely into her spiritual constitution.
JT That is very good. When one, under discipline, says something that indicates real self-judgment, the clouds lift and everything becomes clear. The women of Bethlehem were not hard on Naomi; they did not say, “You should never have gone out of this place”, because she had gone to the bottom of things. As soon as something comes out indicating that we have gone to the bottom with regard to any wayward course we may have taken, the brethren are only too glad to receive us without criticism. Naomi’s statement, “I went out full”, is an acknowledgment that her own will had been at work.
JS So that verse 21 is an evidence of thorough self-judgment on her part: “I went out full, and Jehovah has brought me home again empty ... Jehovah has brought me low, and the Almighty has afflicted me”.
AP One word conveyed the state of her soul — Mara.
JT And her confession did not detract from her at all in the eyes of the Bethlehemites. There was quite a stir in Bethlehem when she arrived, as if they welcomed her. Normally, the brethren are delighted when a false move or wrong conduct in one of them is fully owned. It is a conversion.
ANW Although she went out under the influence of her husband, she takes the responsibility to herself, as she comes back.
JS Do you not think that the people of God at the present time see that the hand of God has been heavy upon them, and when there is thorough self-judgment there will be a lifting of the [p. 179] pressure?
JT I am sure of it. There will be a way out for them, not as an unfeeling but a feeling people, and that is what Mara means here.
AJD Like those, in the days of Ezekiel, who sighed and cried on account of the abominations that were done.
JS So that the way out does not lie with the statesmen of the nations, but rather in the people of God judging themselves.
JT That is what God’s eye is on now; He is thinking of His people. There will be a way out as soon as His people begin to feel things and look definitely to Him. The Lord says, “but on account of the elect those days shall be cut short”, (Matthew 24:22).
AFM Recovery was in Bethlehem for Naomi; she arrived at the point of departure, and under Boaz proved it to be “the house of bread”.
WGT Ruth takes the initiative in chapter 2.
JT Yes; then in chapter 3 Naomi takes the initiative — she tells Ruth what to do; then what comes out at the end of that chapter is, that Ruth had a measure. Boaz said, “Bring the cloak that thou hast upon thee, and hold it”. Her cloak indicated her measure; she was thus tested as to it. Spiritually it was a question of what she could carry back, which indicates a certain growth. Boaz then “measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her”; it was what she was equal to.
WGT In chapter 2 it was more what she had beaten out herself.
JT It was her own work, but now she is coming into something she did not work for — the bounty of God, as we may say.
JS Would that be like Ephesians?
JT Pretty much.
TA Would this measure be what the apostle speaks of as “the measure of the gift of the Christ”?(Ephesians 4:[p. 180] 7).
JT Yes. It is a question here of what you can contain. The quantity given is from Boaz, but the cloak was equal to it. Joseph’s brethren were to take “as much as they can carry”, (Genesis 44:1). Here six measures are put into the cloak; the figure is beautiful.
TA Paul spoke about his cloak.
JT Yes. Timothy, in carrying it to the apostle, would be reminded of what a great vessel Paul was. You will observe that after he gave her the measures of barley, “he went into the city” (Ruth 3:15). It is questioned whether it was Boaz or Ruth who went into the city, but it is “he” in the original; meaning that Boaz took the initiative in going into the city. There is now a great movement on, and Boaz is leading in it. What follows in chapter 4 shows what he has in mind to accomplish in the city.
JS What would the six measures be indicative of?
JT Well, six has a great place in Scripture in a good sense, and sometimes in a bad sense, but obviously this is in a good sense, and would mean she was going on to full growth.
JS Like John 2 — there were six water vessels.
JT All you have to do now is to add one more, and you have the complete idea, which is seven. After six you are waiting for completion, and you get completion in the end of this book.
WB-w The last verse of chapter 3 has completion in view: “for the man will not rest until he have completed the matter this day”.
JT Exactly; the completion is in Boaz; i.e., in Christ. No one of us should be without completeness. The epistle to the Colossians has completeness in view; Paul announced Christ “to the end that we may present every man perfect in Christ”, (chapter 1:[p. 181] 28).
AP You were going to say something more about the city?
JT Well, the city is the place of administration, and it is remarkable that Boaz went into the city. Christ comes first because the city is His place and the matter on hand is to be carried out there in an orderly way.
APT It says of the woman of worth, “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land”, (Proverbs 31:23). Here Boaz sits down in the gate and takes up the question of redemption.
JT It has now to be a settled state of things. This great transaction has to be done carefully, and without hurry. Boaz says, “Thou, such an one, turn aside, sit down here”, (chapter 4:1). An important matter is now in hand; it is a question of redemption and all that hinges upon it.
WGT Boaz would represent the place the Lord has in administration in the assembly.
JT Yes; it is Christ in the city now, in the place of administration, and the first thing that comes out is the elimination of the man that had the right of redemption; his name is not even given, it is: “Thou, such an one”. There is not much distinction about “such an one”! This man is typical of the law which did not effect anything; Hebrews 7 says, “The law perfected nothing”; it could not add to the six!
AFM Would the order, then, in this chapter be — first, redemption; and then union, which seems naturally to follow?
JT Exactly. “Boaz said to the elders and all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all ... moreover Ruth ... have I purchased to be my wife”, (chapter 4::9,10).
WGT [p. 182] The verses at the end of the book attribute everything to the sovereignty of God.
JT The Messiah, too, is there, but in the distance. There is a link with Ephesians in these chapters, where a wonderful vista is opened up to us, in the presence of which Paul says, “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages. Amen”, (Ephesians 3:21).