Coffeespiller87 Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 212 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,691 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 449 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/28/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2014 What happened to land that wast redeemed? do u think that when Naomi brought Ruth back with her they lived in her land that they had before the left for Moab? what happened to their land in Bethlehem while they were in Moab for ten years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persuaded Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 107 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2014 Boaz redeemed the land. He bought the land to gain a wife, Ruth. No, Naomi and Ruth didn't live on their land, until their kinsman redeemer performed his duty. The land in those days was never technically sold, more like what we would think of as leased. The deed holder could transfer use of the family land to someone else, but by law ownership of the land couldn't be transferred permanently out of the family. The practice was to write the description of the property on a document (a deed), roll it up, then write the terms of the lease (the cost to redeem it, who could redeem it, etc) on the outside, with a seal. See Jer 32:6-15, where the deed is described as "sealed and open", and Rev 4, where the scroll is written on both sides and sealed. These all describe and amplify the roll of the kinsman redeemer, as set out in Ruth and given its full expression in Revelation, as another Kinsman Redeemer sets out to take possession of the land He paid for, in order to gain for Himself a bride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeespiller87 Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 212 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,691 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 449 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/28/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 If they didnt live on their land until it was redeemed then where did they stay while in Bethlehem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persuaded Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 107 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2014 The book doesn't specifically say. [Rth 1:19 KJV] So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, [is] this Naomi? From this, it seems clear that Naomi was well known in the town. It seems likely that somebody offered them a place to stay, or perhaps they still had the tents from their journey from Moab. Any particular reason that it matters, either to the flow of the story or the typology of Boaz and Ruth and Naomi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeespiller87 Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 212 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,691 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 449 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/28/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 well we are studying Ruth in my women's Bible study and I got confused about what happened to the land when Naomi and her husband left for Moab in the first place. do u think they leased their land to someone before leaving Bethlehem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,147 Content Per Day: 4.61 Reputation: 27,842 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2014 Blessings Coffee I do not believe they did anything with their property except abandon it when they left,in hopes of escaping the famine their,,,,,so it must not have yielded anything or they wouljd not have left in the first place ,,,,so it was rendered as worthless......... 20 “Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara,”[m] she answered,[n] “for the Almighty has made me very bitter. 21 I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has pronounced judgment on[o] me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?” Seems they came back to nothing as Ruth followed behind the men working in the field of Boaz,next to her in laws (husband ,Naomi etc,,,)property,,,,,,,,,,, With love-in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persuaded Posted October 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 107 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 21, 2014 Kwik, you owe yourself a kwik read of the book of Ruth! Yes Naomi (actually her husband, Elimelech, who was still alive when they left) "sold" the land when they left: [Rth 4:3-10 NKJV] Then he said to the close relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, sold the piece of land which [belonged] to our brother Elimelech. "And I thought to inform you, saying, 'Buy [it] back in the presence of the inhabitants and the elders of my people. If you will redeem [it], redeem [it]; but if you will not redeem [it, then] tell me, that I may know; for [there is] no one but you to redeem [it], and I [am] next after you.' " And he said, "I will redeem [it]." Then Boaz said, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy [it] from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance." And the close relative 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]." Now this [was the custom] in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave [it] to the other, and this [was] a confirmation in Israel. Therefore the close relative said to Boaz, "Buy [it] for yourself." So he took off his sandal. And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You [are] witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that [was] Chilion's and Mahlon's, from the hand of Naomi. "Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You [are] witnesses this day." In addition to being a really great piece of literature, with some of the most angst-filled dialogue possible (in the older translations, the newer ones really mess it up!), there is a lot going on in this tiny little book. Get some good commentaries that explain the leverite marriage, the authority of the hem of the garment, the whole kinsman redeemer/avenger of blood/goel concept, the meanings of the names, the significance of Perez, and if it interests you the that is so richly embedded throughout the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeespiller87 Posted October 22, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 212 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,691 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 449 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/28/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 what is typology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persuaded Posted October 23, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 107 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 23, 2014 Typology is the study of "types" or "models" in scripture. Ayin Jade gives a definition at the beginning of the "typology" thread she started (which I linked to, above). I look at types a little more broadly than she does, but her definition is a good start. Types seem to me to be most vivid when the characters in the story, or the details used in the story, seem out of place or contrived in the story itself but only become clear when Jesus, or some NT truth, is placed in the middle of the story. So in Ruth, we have a beautiful piece of literature, but its fullest expression is as a type of Christ redeeming the world to obtain His bride, and almost every detail of the story of Ruth seems engineered to point to the bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts