Ruth, the Ezekiel 16 bride?

It seems on some level we are all doing typology either well or not so well

In almost every Substack, I have made a case for the male and female of Genesis 1 and the man and woman of Genesis 2 representing things beyond themselves, things present before God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” What are those things?  I have argued that they are found in Genesis 1-2: 

1. Genesis 1:1

   1. Elohim 

   2. the heavens and the earth

2.  Genesis 2:4

   1. Yahweh Elohim

   2. the heavens and earth, the realm of God's session and the realm of God’s work of earthly creation

As I have mentioned before, the heavens and the earth are mentioned twice in 2:4 and conspicuously reversed to “earth and heavens” the second time, immediately before God proceeds to make Adam first (identified with the earth) and the woman last (identified with the heavens). 

I agree that this understanding of man and woman is new, but I do not agree that this is novel in the worst sense of that word. I see it as the organic development of the Deeper Protestant Conception (DPC) applied to “male and female he created them.” Geerhardus Vos coined the DPC in his Reformed Dogmatics 2:13-15. Vos says something profoundly comforting, actually elating:

“ . . . our entire nature should not be free from God at any point; the nature of man must be worship from beginning to end. According to the deeper Protestant conception, the image does not exist only in correspondence with God but in being disposed toward God. God’s nature is, as it were, the stamp; our nature is the impression made by this stamp. Both fit together.”

In the beginning, we were formed to fit with God, like a stamp and its impression, provisionally on earth and consummately in heaven. According to Vos, this was the nature of the man and the woman of Genesis 1-2. That “fit” came with a covenant. They were to make every effort to receive that consummate communion by obeying the voice of the One who made them to fit himself.  In Genesis 3, they failed to enter Sabbath rest through Adam’s obedience. Once wholly inclined, now they and their offspring are wholly disinclined to God. But where sin reigned, grace sprinted, overcame, and beat sin to the tape (nod to the Games). The Seed was promised, a Second Adam, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God in Sabbath rest. That realm stands before us today through faith in the Son’s perfect obedience. I want to consider whether the symbols of the man and woman, the son and Sabbath city, given with the creation of the man and the woman in the garden of Eden, have lapsed since our fall in Genesis 3.

I have built a case not only on Vos’s biblical theology, but on the principle of representation introduced by Van Til. Within God there is representation. Each person exhaustively represents the other two persons. When God created mankind, he made mankind for himself like a stamp and impression, and he made mankind like himself, an equally ultimate unity of essence (image-bearer) and diversity of persons (male and female). 

I have extended this representation to the heavens and earth. Earth represents the concerns of heaven. Heaven represents the concerns of earth. Earth and heaven share the same essence as his throne complex, yet they are a diversity, seat and footstool, destined to converge on the last day. You could say it this way: In Genesis 2, the earth and heavens “fit” in  verse 4 (cf. Rev 21), just like the man and the woman “fit” in verses 24-26.  Adam, the son of God, comes forth from God with a call to return to God in Sabbath rest through obedience (2:5-27). Eve, the city, comes from the son’s side as Zion destined to descend and be united with the earth on the last day. I call all this “stamp and impression” and “exit and return” language representation. Even though Van Til applied his representational principle primarily to epistemology, unless I am mistaken, he would approve of its application to anthropology. God is giving us these things, drenching us in representation, so that his person and plan are unmistakable, no excuses. 

Maybe we cannot see it because it is not there, but maybe we cannot see it because we do not want to see it. The last sermons that I heard preached in a former church were from a series on Ruth.  In the third sermon, the pastor portrayed the poverty and vulnerability of Ruth in chapter 3 —  what Ruth and Naomi wanted, what Ruth and Naomi needed, was a kinsman-Redeemer. Naomi had no prospects because of her age, and Ruth had “low prospects,” being from a people synonymous with sexual immorality. To be fair, he drew some attention to Ruth’s virtues and the fact that Boaz calls her a worthy woman; but when he came to apply Ruth 3, he found in Ruth an example of us all who come as destitute sinners to Christ. We draw near as unworthy, with nothing to offer.  He compared Ruth’s physical poverty to our spiritual poverty and Ruth’s appeal to Boaz on the threshing floor, to our appeal for Christ to make us his bride despite our unworthiness. It also seemed a good thing to him to tie Ruth as a Moabite to the adulteress of Luke 7. He linked Ruth’s natural distinctions as a woman and a Moabite to our moral failures. When I pointed out that the book of Ruth does not mention Ruth’s sin and Ruth never mentions her weakness, he seemed baffled. He could not see that Ruth goes from strength to strength until she appears not “in Zion” (Ps 84:7), but I suggest “as Zion,” the strong citadel of David and his greater son. 

Though later I was told it was not my place to spur his thinking, I approached him with another angle on the basis of his application of Ruth 3 (above): Ruth, a suffering servant. Though assuredly a sinner like us all, in the book of Ruth, she suffers for righteousness sake as a type of Christ, who lays down her life, bringing Naomi from death to life. He said that he could not see it. Although he could see our poverty and misery in Ruth, he could not easily see strength and glory in Ruth.  For him, Ruth represented primarily what is weak and despised, whose misfortunes could only be reversed by finding a husband. In his thought, Ruth primarily needs rest. She does not offer rest. 

The pastor saw Ruth principally in light of her need, through the lens of passages like Ezekiel 16 and the adulteress of Luke 7. Like Ruth, we are helpless. As sinners, we are naked and abandoned by the side of the road, needing to be lifted up, cleansed, healed, nurtured, and brought to maturity. We need to be redeemed by our Lord. Surely this is true and we daily cling to him for life, but is this what the book of Ruth is telling us? For him it was obvious. I think that he came to Ruth with preconceived notions of Boaz, a type of Christ, and then found Ruth over against Boaz. I believe that this pastor simply aligned himself with what is taught or caught among us: the woman represents the creature over against the Creator; the redeemed over against the Redeemer. These are not the conclusions that I have come to. I believe that there is also a glory ascribed to the woman of Genesis 2, proportionate to the man, that appears in Ruth and consummately in Revelation, a dignity commensurate to the man. Could she be in the likeness of God as well, a finite and creaturely symbol of God himself in his strength? Could she stand to represent the glory of the enthroned Son, the Glory-Cloud, the citadel in which we will take eternal refuge, a city of  rest? Consider Psalm 132 in light of Ruth 3:18,

“Sit, my daughter, until you know how the matter will turn out, for the man (ish) will not have peace until he has finished the matter today” (Ruth 3:18).¹

“I will not enter my house or get in my bed, I will not allow my eyes to sleep or my eyelids to slumber until I find a place for the Lord, a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob . . . For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his home: ‘This is my resting place forever; I will make my home here because I have desired it’” (Ps 132:3-5; 13-15).

Psalm 132 includes all the imagery surrounding the son and his radiance, the city. With the other 30 Zion songs, images of covenant and ark, priest and faithful people, anointed son and offspring, throne, home, rest, abundance, satisfaction, joy, horn, lamp, crown of glory are evoked.

So again, in light of the larger redemptive-historical picture of Scripture and the sons of Boaz, David and Christ, who will not rest in Psalm 132, does Boaz’s pursuit of Ruth sound like he is stooping to offer marriage to a disreputable bride? Is this what the book of Ruth is primarily telling us about the man Boaz and the woman Ruth?  Is this the only man-woman paradigm in the Scriptures when the man appears with the woman? Is it always and only asymmetrical: Creator-creature; Redeemer-redeemed; Independent-dependent; Strong-weak, as Meredith Kline suggests?²  Or are we given Boaz, a man looking for a city, a citadel, beckoned by her abundance (Rev 22:17)? In the end, I asked myself, “If a pastor cannot see the glory of Ruth in the book of Ruth and apply her to us in her strength, what chance is there that he would ever find in me anything to esteem?”. 

I write this as a sort of follow-up to my last post, to demonstrate the very real consequences of our lop-sided anthropology. The things that we consciously or subconsciously believe about typology find their way into our relationships and into our churches. They hinder our fellowship with God, who is intensely interested in our love and esteem for our neighbor (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8-10). They disrupt our lives and cause suffering on the ground. This is not “fun speculation” as a Reformed scholar once said to me indirectly. Is it speculation? I do not think so, but if it is, I think we are all doing it either consciously or subconsciously. How is a sermon that parallels Ruth and the Ezekiel 16 adulteress less speculative? Concerning “fun,” on reflection I think he might be right if by it he means the joy of the Lord, who daily sets our gaze on the eternal Son and his Glory-Spirit temple.

I am working now on Zion as a suffering bride, which led my thoughts to Ruth and the above post. Thank you for taking the time to read. Please comment.

1. Ish is first used for Adam after the creation of Eve in Genesis 2:23. The man (adam) becomes the man (ish) after God united him to the woman (ishah).

2. Meredith Kline, Images of the Spirit, 34.