“the Book of Ruth … states that the Messiah is coming to descend from Ruth through King David. Ruth relates to events within the narrative reality of the Book of Ruth as allegorical allusions to the future of her descendants. Ruth’s modesty, her great beauty, her uprightness narrated the positive picture of her as a righteous woman in the bible. Her acts of kindness toward Naomi was associated with Isa. 53:5”
What a muddle. Allegedly, Ruth meaning friendship, was the wife of Mahion, the elder son of Naomi, and afterwards of Boaz, to whom she bared Obed father of Jesse father of David – said to be around 1300 BC.
Now Naomi meaning pleasant said unto them “Call me not Naomi, call me Mara; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me” – Ruth 1:20. Naomi said “I went out full and the Lord hath brought me home empty … the Lord hath testified against me … afflicted me.” These were the days well before David and well before the book of Isaiah.
The story of Israel is the story of the “suffering servant” or “man of sorrows” but these terms were not penned until the book of Isaiah. It is wrong to say “Her acts of kindness toward Naomi was associated with Isa. 53:5” – which was penned much later. Yes, bondage always made bitterness. Naomi, Mara represented bitterness and this would later be replicated in the virgin Mary of the NT but likewise it can never be directly associated with the NT.
Christology cannot comprehend Hebraic midrash and therefor makes statement like “Her acts of kindness toward Naomi was associated with Isa. 53:5” claiming 53:5 is a prophecy of their Messiah of the first century. Christianity much later adopted this connection to surpass the Ancient scribes message of their suffering time and time again.
Whilst we are in bondage to much latter Christology we never will appreciate the philosophy of our Ancient masters who revered liberty of conscience. To the extent that they state “allegorical allusions” the Wikipedia statement is correct and there is nothing new under the sun and moon. To the scribes David was the start of a representation of the soul temple and never to be glorified literally as the Temple – the object was to be a shadow of the subjective-abstract.
Right through to the book of Revelation the scribes knew “and I saw no temple therein” – Rev. 21:22 as the only temple is Today, here and now … and each person’s house of action.